9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in and Packing List, the petitioner's Clearing Agents, M/s. New India Corporation, Calcutta, duly filed a Bill of Entry for warehousing under Section 59 of the Customs Act together with the shipping documents as also the import licence. On 7th August, 1990, 20% of the said goods, i.e., 8 pallets were opened in the presence of the Assistant Collector of Customs, N.S.D. and Assistant Collector of Customs, S.I.B. by the concerned Shed Appraiser. The said goods were physically checked and verified and were found to be a mixed sizes and qualities, as declared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner No. 2 received a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 10th September, 1990 from the Special Investigation Branch in connection with the importation of Polypropylene Packaging Film Rolls, and the petitioner No. 2 was asked to appear before the authorities on 13th September, 1990 at 11 A.M. The petitioner No. 2 duly appeared and gave a statement. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 was asked to submit an undertaking that he will not ask for release of the goods until investigation by the Special Investigation Branch is completed. On 5th October, 1990 the bill of entry for ware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober, 1991, the petitioners received a show cause notice dated 26th September, 1991 to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and penal action should not be initiated under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 7 days. On 21st October, 1991 the petitioners received an order of adjudication being order No. 61 of 1991 dated 9-10-1991. The case of the petitioners is that the goods which are imported have been wrongfully and illegally detained by the authorities concerned and the demand of Rs. 1,25,235/- towards interest on leviable customs duty is wrongful, illegal, arbitrary and without any authority. Further case of the petitioners is that the customs authorities have no power or authority or jurisdiction to confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) or to impose any penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The order of adjudication was passed ex parte without considering the matter in accordance with law. 4. The respondents contested the matter by filing affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by one Pradyot Kumar Chakraborty, Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising, Group 2, Calcutta. It is stated that the petitioners' remedy lies by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and unless the earlier orders of clearance by the customs authorities are reviewed under Section 129D of the Customs Act, it is not open to the customs authorities to issue the notice to show cause. Mr. Sen relied upon a decision in the case of J.K. Synthetic v. Union of India reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 328 (Del.) and submits that- "An authority can depart from his earlier stand only for cogent reasons, such as fresh facts are brought on record or the process of manufacture has changed or the relevant Tariff entry has undergone modification or subsequent to the earlier decision, there has been a pronouncement of a High Court or the Supreme Court which necessitates the reconsideration of the issue. 6. Mr. Sen further relied upon a decision in the case of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in AIR 1958 Cal 630, wherein it has been held : "The customs now say that they are not bound by their previous decisions. Whether the doctrine of precedents applies in its full rigor to Administrative agencies and officers, and whether a reasonable latitude should be given to them or administrative tribunals to correct or modify their previous decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for the respondents, that the customs authorities have strictly carried out the direction of Suhas Chandra Sen, J. in terms of the order passed on 19-9-1991 and the customs authorities issued notice to show cause dated 26-9-1991 and thereafter the order of adjudication was passed on 4-10-1991. So, there was no lack of jurisdiction in passing the order and the order cannot be challenged. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the order of adjudication is being challenged. Section 129 of the Customs Act provides for appeal against the order of Collector of Customs before the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. There is no whisper in the petition as to why no such appeal was filed in accordance with that provisions of the Customs Act. Since the adjudication was done in compliance with the order of this Court and there is a provision for appeal against the said order, the present application is misconceived. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the question whether the imported goods are or are not second quality or disposal goods, involves a decision on question of facts, which cannot be decided by the Writ Court without taking evidence. The customs authorities, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
