SUNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6439 of 1984 -D. The appellant was issued Notice Ext. PI dated 19 -7 -1984 by the Collectorate of Customs under Section 124 of the Customs Act, requiring him to show cause why action for confiscation of the goods should not be made. He was asked to file a written statement within the time specified and to appear before the adjudicating officer when the case is fixed for hearing, failing which he was informed that the case will be decided with the evidence on record without any further hearing. This notice was challenged by the appellant in O.P. No. 6349 of 1984 filed on 24th July 1984. That writ petition came up before the learned single Judge on more than one occasion and it came to be admitted on 31st July, 1984. The Collector of Customs however passed a final order in pursuance of the notice Ext. P1 on the 27 the July, 19& as per Ext. P14, confiscating the goods covered by three bilk of entry under Section 111D of the Customs Act. The appellants has been given an option to redeem the goods for home consumption on payment of a fine of Rs. 6 lakhs in lieu of confiscation within three months or such extended time as the Collector may allow. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,0007 - under Section 112A of the Customs Act. When this fact of passing the final order by the Collector was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, when O.P. No. 6439 of 1984 came up for final hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has a statutory right of appeal against the order, Ext. P14, and that therefore there is no justification for this Court to/exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is the said judgment that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) IT was submitted by Sri Warriyar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant did not file a written statement in response to Ext. PI within the specified time as he had chellenged the very same Notice Ext. PI in O.P. No. 6439 of 1984 and was bonafide pursuing his remedy in this Court. He submitted that the records show that the Collector of Customs had come to know about the appellant having approached this Court for reliefs challenging his Notice Ext. PI. It was further submitted that the Collector had stated in his Notice Ext. PI that if no written statement is filed in response to the said Notice, he would be entitled to proceed to dispose of the case on the date fixed for hearing on the basis of the evidence and material on record, without any further notice. It was pointed out that no date of hearing as such was filed by the Collector and therefore the Collector was not entitled to pass the order Ext. P14 without fixing a date of hearing.