J. SHEIK PARITH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had imported consumer goods in his capacity as a Power of Attorney holder of a proprietary entity, by name M/s.Majestic Impex, Pudukottai/Saibudeen as well as the authorised representative of a proprietary entity by name M/s.SSP Enterprises/Senthil Jaganathan. According to the petitioner, there were certain mistakes committed by the suppliers of the imported goods, on account of which, the consignment under Bill of Entry No.4565925 dated 06.09.2011 imported by SSP Enterprises was found to contain undeclared as well as short declared goods. The aforesaid consignments were seized and enquiry commenced. Along with the offending consignment, other containers had also been seized. This was followed by a search by the Department of Revenue (Intelligence) (DRI) at the residential premises of the petitioner as well as in the premises of the concerned customs broker. Voluminous documents appear to have been seized by the DRI in the course of search.

(2.) A show cause notice dated 22.12.2011 in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( "?Act') was issued by the DRI demanding duty in respect of 84 bills of entry and three Import General Manifests including additional duty on consignments covered by 83 bills of entry already seized.

(3.) On 19.04.2012, the petitioner sought copies of various documents including copies of the seized documents to enable it to furnish its reply. The request was rejected by the Appraiser of Customs on 12.10.2012, following which, on 19.10.2012, the Commissioner of Customs issued summons for personal hearing. The issue of summons even prior to the furnishing of the material sought, was challenged in W.P.No.29526 of 2012 and W.P.No.29833 of 2012 by the petitioner in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity as power of attorney holder of Majestic Impex, respectively. Initially, only the Commissioner of Customs was arrayed as respondent in both the Writ Petitions. However, in W.P.No.29526 of 2012, the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was impleaded by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 in WMP No.29666 of 2019. Notice was issued and an order of interim injunction granted in W.P.No.29526 of 2012 on 31.10.2012. W.P.No.29833 of 2012 filed by the petitioner as authorised signatory of Majestic Impex came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 07.11.2012 on the ground that only summons for personal hearing was challenged by the petitioner, who had not chosen to challenge the show cause notice dated 22.12.2011 that constituted the basis of the proceedings.