9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e where we can conclusively hold that the Petitioners were not aware of the proceedings and that there is no merit in the stand of the Respondents that the Petitioners have deliberately adopted this strategy so as to create lacuna to challenge the impugned order. Since the Petitioners have an alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order and that the Petitioners can urge all the points available to them in law including those raised in this petition before the Appellate Authority, we do not feel it necessary to delve upon the matter any further. Petition rejected. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. Beni Chatterjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... origin in respect of import of Areca nuts as that of Sri Lanka origin to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under notification dated 1 March 2000 under Free Trade Agreement between Sri Lanka and India. Upon this input, the officers of the DRI, Bangalore verified the premises of the Petitioner No.1- Bangalore Agro Products. The statement of Petitioner No.2 was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. The statements of other parties involved in the import of Areca nuts were also recorded. A detailed show cause notice cum demand under section 124 read with section 28 of the Customs Act was issued by the DRI on 13 April 2018. This show cause notice was addressed to the Petitioner No.1 at its address of Bangalore i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing where they have shifted, there was no purpose in affixing the notice on the site. The Additional Director, therefore, posted a notice on the notice-board of the Customs Office and proceeded to adjudicate the matter. The Petitioners did not participate in the adjudication proceedings. The Additional Director General, accordingly, by the impugned order levied a differential duty and penalty as detailed above. 7. We have heard Mr. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Ms. Amin for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Jetly for Respondent No.6. 8. There is no dispute that as regards the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Petitioners have remedy of appeal under section 129 of the Customs Act to the Customs, Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice be given and at least three opportunities of personal hearing be given with sufficient intervals of time. Mr.Chatterjee relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala AIR 1999 SC 1281 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta v. M/s. Bendale Brothers 2019 (2) ALL MR 42 to stress upon the requirement of adequate opportunity of hearing to the noticee. He contended that once the procedure is laid down in the statute, it ought to have been followed. 11. Mr.Jetly, on the other hand, submitted that the conduct of the Petitioners is gross and that they have been involved in systematic fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1 at its address Bangalore address and Petitioner No.2 at his residential address as above. The Petitioners on 18 December 2018 replied in the context of show cause notice on the letterhead of Petitioner No.1 having aforesaid address of Bangalore i.e. No.7, Shop No.7, 3rd Cross, Hanumaiah Layout, Kodigehalli, Bangalore-560 092. Even after the appointment of Respondent No.8 as common adjudicator the same was informed to the Petitioners on the same address. The Petitioners have not pointed out to us any instructions issued by them to Respondent No.8 that all correspondence pursuant to the show cause notice be sent to the Petitioners on a particular address or the changed address. If the Petitioners, after receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
