CHANDRAKANT SETH Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had imported certain goods. The goods were assessed to Duty and the petitioner took delivery of the goods. Such importation took place in the year 1983. On 17th February, 1986 five several Show-Cause Notices were issued to the petitioner in respect of this importation under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA in March, 1986. According to the petitioner, he was detained on allegations which were identical with those contained in the Show-Cause Notice. According to the petitioner, the Central Advisory Board released the petitioner on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for petitioner's detention. On 8th July, 1986 the petitioner asked for furnishing various documents, information, materials etc. The Collector, according to the petitioner, fixed the date of hearing on 14th July, 1986. It is the petitioner's further case that although inspection of certain documents were given by the respondents from time to time, the material documents were not shown, nor copies thereof furnished. The Customs Authorities finally fixed the date of hearing on 30th December, 1986. This writ application was moved on 24th December, 1986. An ad interim order was passed restraining the respondents-Authorities from proceeding with the Show Cause Notice. An interim order was also passed directing the Authorities concerned to make available the documents listed in the Schedule to the petition, and to produce Customs Officers for cross-examination at the hearing of the adjudication proceeding. It also appears that during the pendency of the writ application, a further application was made by the petitioner for interim relief. That application is stated to be still pending.

(2.) The respondents have said that they have filed an affidavit-in-op-position, although no copy of the affidavit-in-opposition appears in the records. Be that as it may, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the writ petitioner.

(3.) The writ petitioner has raised several contentions before this Court. The first contention is that the goods having already been cleared before the initiation of the proceedings under Section 124 of the said Act, there was no scope for taking any action under Section 28 or Section 124 of the said Act against the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that the proceedings under Sections 124 and 28 of the said Act would amount to reviewing of the order by which the goods were directed to be released and such review was not permissible except under Section 129D of the said Act. Thirdly, it is contended that the actions initiating the proceedings under Section 124 and Section 28 of the said Act were mala fide. Fourthly, it is contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue the Show Cause Notice. Fifthly, it is submitted that in any event; if the adjudication proceedings are allowed to be continued, the respondents should comply with the interim order dated 4th December, 1986 which was passed in terms of prayer (h) of the writ petition.