BHARGAVRAJ RAMESHKUMAR MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an orderinoriginal dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, in the following factual background.

(2.) The petitioner is an individual. He is stated to be a Dubai based Non Resident Indian. He is also a partner of a partnership firm M/s. Rajkot Impex having its establishment at Rajkot. It appears that the DRI authorities of the Customs department had intercepted a cargo purportedly carrying zinc ingots so declared by the importer which arrived at Mundra port. It was found that there was a systematic attempt to smuggle gold concealed in such ingots. The gold was carefully packed, insulated for protection and then covered with zinc to make it look like zinc ingots. The ones carrying concealed gold had distinguishing mark to enable their separation from the rest of the cargo. A fullfledged investigation was carried out. Statements of the importers and their agents were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 196 According to the Customs authorities, the petitioner was the kingpin of this smuggling attempt. He was the one who had roped in the actual importer and the middleman. A show cause notice dated 11.10.2014 was therefore, issued against all such persons including the petitioner for smuggling of gold weighing 24.980 kgs. The show cause notice also covered an earlier instance where allegedly the partnership firm of the petitioner was instrumental in smuggling of 4 kgs of gold. In this show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to explain why penalties should not be imposed on him under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 196 Case of the petitioner is that such show cause notice was never served on him. The department though fully aware that the petitioner is a resident of Sharjah, sent the notices at the address of partnership firm at Rajkot and, thereafter, proceeded exparte against the petitioner without service of notice on him. Noticees other than the petitioner and his partnership firm appeared before the Commissioner who upon completion of the proceedings passed the impugned order.

(3.) We are informed that the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of customs duty with interest and penalties against the partnership firm has been challenged before the CESTAT. Present petitioner however, has filed the writ petition directly bypassing the appellate remedy on the ground that the order of the Commissioner suffers from breach of principles of natural justice and even otherwise, he has passed the order beyond his jurisdiction.