LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-452

A.SUBUKHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

Decided On September 09, 2019
A.Subukhan Appellant
V/S
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order in original dated 29.03.2019 passed against the petitioner and others, wherein and whereby, it was ordered to confiscate 1100 Kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride valued at Rs.1,98,00,000/- under Section 113(d)(e)(h) and (i) of the Customs Act , 1962; to confiscate the Indian currency notes of Rs.60,100/- and foreign currencies viz., US Dollars and Singapore Dollars of various denomination, both Indian and Foreign currencies totally valued at Rs.1,47,850/- and Gold jewellery available at the residence of one S.P.Rajapandian totally weighing 331.18 grams and valued at Rs.5,26,755/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962; imposing penalty of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakh Only) on the petitioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and further imposing penalty on other three persons as well, as stated therein.

(2.) Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and argued the matter.

(3.) The prime contention of the learned Senior Counsel not only in challenging the order in original and also for maintaining the writ petition is that the order of adjudication was passed inordinately after a period of 8 years from the date of issuance of a show cause notice and therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned order of adjudication is liable to be interfered with and set aside. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of India Vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, (1989) 3 SCC 483, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Transworld Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Government of India, 2018 (361) E.L.T. 176 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta Vs. Union of India, 2018 (364) E.L.T. 81. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel contended that inordinate delay in passing the order of adjudication vitiates the entire proceedings.