PARSAN BROTHERS Vs. JT. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the communication dated 23 -12 -2002 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 85 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'). Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is a shipping agent as well as shipping chandler. It imported certain goods and stored them in the Customs godown duly executing bonds. Through the impugned communication, the 1st respondent required the petitioner to pay the Customs duty of Rs. 4,41,851/ - and interest of Rs. 2,03,431/ -. The petitioner states that the impugned communication was not preceded by any notice and representations made by it were not taken into account. It is also pleaded that the goods are covered by Section 85 of the Act and accordingly are exempted from Customs duty. Reference is made to Writ Petition No. 11236 of 2002 filed by them in relation to similar letters dated 1 -2 -2002 and 17 -5 -2002.

(2.) THE respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the communication does not amount to any adjudication. As such, if the petitioner is so advised, it can make a representation in relation thereto.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner stored the goods imported by it, viz., cigarettes and liquor in the Customs godown duly executing the bonds. The respondents were of the view that the petitioner did not remove the goods though substantial period has expired. The petitioner made representations on 5 -1 -2002 and 7 -6 -2002 for extension of warehouse period. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondents wanted to levy Customs duty and interest. The question as to whether the plea of the petitioner that the goods are covered by Section 85 of the Act needs to be considered after issuing notice to it. Writ Petition No. 11236 of 2002 filed by the petitioner under similar circumstances has been disposed of by this Court on 3 -9 -2013 directing the respondent therein to consider the explanations offered by the petitioner vide letters dated 8 -3 -2002 and 25 -3 -2002 and any further explanation or objections that they may submit and pass appropriate orders in terms of the relevant provisions. We are of the view that the impugned communication can be treated as a show cause notice by itself and the petitioner can be granted reasonable time to put forward its contentions.