ETA GENERAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Order-in-Original No. 18452/2012, dated March 7, 2012. At the first instance, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs made a demand of Rs. 4,91,000 in respect of three bills of entry with interest on failure to produce the B-15 registration certificate issued to the supplier of the goods, namely, switches which were cleared provisionally. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai after hearing the appeal, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the original authorities for de novo enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group 5A, on remand initiated the proceedings de novo and issued notices on various dates calling upon the petitioner to appear for personal hearing. It is recorded in the order under challenge that the petitioner failed to appear on the dates mentioned and therefore the authority had no other option except to proceeds further.

(2.) Paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which is relevant, reads as follows:

(3.) Since there is no response from the petitioner, the authority came to hold that the importer is trying to delay the matter and failed to co-operate in conducting the matter. Hence, he proceeded to pass orders on merits. In the result, the authority passed an order of confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The following order came to be passed: