NUMAN ALAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.4.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. no.12114 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant -writ petitioner seeking relief of release of seized goods by the custom authorities has been dismissed.

(2.) THE fact in nutshell giving rise to this appeal is that on 12.6.2001 the authorities of Central Excise and Customs Department had apprehended a truck, bearing registration no. HR -38A -4049, with battery powder weighing 17500 kilograms suspected to be Zink Oxide/Zinc Sulphate which was being allegedly imported from Australia to Nepal through the border of India. The officials of the Customs Department headed by Joint Commissioner Customs, Patna, had made a preliminary enquiry and after being satisfied on a reasonable belief that the goods and the truck were liable for confiscation under sections 111 and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the &aposAct&apos) had initiated a proceeding against the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to appellant by issuing a show cause notice dated 3.12.2001 had also passed a final order on 15.7.2003 under section 122 of the Customs Act directing confiscation of the aforesaid seized goods in terms of Section 111 (b) of the Customs Act. The said order of the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Patna, was assailed by the appellant -writ petitioner in Appeal no. 225/CUS/Appeal/2004 which also was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 21.9.2004. The appellant -writ petitioner thereafter had also moved the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Eastern Regional Bench, and the Tribunal also by its order dated 2.6.2005 had dismissed the case of the appellant -writ petitioner for default and/or non -prosecution.

(3.) 8.2005. The appellant -writ petitioner however had filed an application in the Tribunal for restoration of his application which was restored. When there was another default on behalf of the appellant -writ petitioner the Tribunal again dismissed his application by an order dated 6.1.2006. The appellant -writ petitioner had again filed an application for restoration of his application but this time the Tribunal refused to restore the application by an order dated (Sic) holding the writ petitioner - appellant to be a habitual defaulter. 4 It is the case of the appellant -writ petitioner that after the Tribunal had refused to restore his application, he had sought the implementation of the order dated 15.7.2003 by which the Joint Commissioner, Customs, Patna, while passing the order of confiscation of the seized goods had given an option to the petitioner under section 125 of the Customs Act to redeem the seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.75,000/ - in lieu of confiscation. It is the case of the writ petitioner -appellant that when his representation dated 15.5.2006 and 8.8.2006 did not bear any fruitful result, he had filed the writ application on 9.10.2006 for the solitary relief for a direction to the respondent to release the seized goods in his favour after accepting the redemption fine and the penalty.