LAWS(CAL)-1995-7-51

ANIL KUMAR DIDWANIA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Decided On July 19, 1995
Anil Kumar Didwania Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order of the Collector of Customs dated January 30, 1995 (dispatched on March 9, 1995) under Sec. 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Petitioner has filed a writ petition before a Learned Single Judge on the Original Side. The relevant portion of the order of the Collector of Customs is as follows: In view of my above findings, I hold that the duty amounting to Rs. 1,53,09,118.00 has been short levied in respect of the Bills of Entries 2091 to 2130 all dated 29th November, 1990, by reason of collusion, willful mis -statement deliberate mis -declaration and suppression of vital facts by the importer and their accomplices and, therefore, I confirm the demand of duty amounting to, Rs. 1,53,09,118.00 under Sec. 28 of Custom Act, 1962. I order that the said amount should be paid by the importer immediately.

(2.) The Collector also found that the goods were liable for confiscation under Sec. 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods had been allowed clearance under an undertaking that they were not available for confiscation. Subsequently by the judgment impugned the Collector of Customs held that they were liable for confiscation. On that findings, since the goods had been removed, a fine of Rs. 75,00,000 (Rupees Seventy five lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation and in terms of the undertaking under Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, have been imposed. His finding further was to the following effect:

(3.) The grounds on which the writ petition has been filed by the writ Petitioner -Appellant are that the Collector of Customs had passed the said order in breach of. principles of natural justice and without serving any notice of the adjudication proceedings on the writ Petitioner. The learned Single Judge by the order under challenge in this appeal dismissed the writ application without going into the merits of the said order only on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy against the order under challenge in this appeal by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.