Writ remedy, natural justice, and customs notice defects: penalty and confiscation were quashed for prejudice and ignored mitigation.

An alternative remedy under appeal did not bar a writ petition where it was not an effective or sufficient remedy, so writ jurisdiction remained available. A delayed request for personal hearing, not made in the manner required by the notice, did not make the order invalid for breach of natural justice. In customs penalty proceedings, the notice had to specify both the contravention and the proposed penalty; the omission to ask the petitioner to show cause against the penalty caused prejudice, so the penalty was quashed. A confiscation order under the Sea Customs Act was also set aside because relevant mitigating circumstances bearing on culpability were not considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the availability of an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue barred the writ petition under Article 226; (ii) whether refusal to grant a personal hearing vitiated the order on the ground of breach of natural justice; (iii) whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was invalid for want of a proper show-cause notice and for mention of the wrong statutory provision; and (iv) whether the confiscation of the boat under Section 168 of the Sea Customs Act could stand despite the absence of consideration of mitigating circumstances.

Issue (i): whether the availability of an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue barred the writ petition under Article 226.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy did not, by itself, bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The remedy had to be shown to be effective and sufficient. In the circumstances, the appellate remedy was held not to be an effective alternative, having regard to the expense involved and the practical difficulty of complying with the precondition for appeal.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether refusal to grant a personal hearing vitiated the order on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The request for personal hearing was made after the time allowed in the show-cause notice had expired, and no timely intimation had been sent in the manner required by the notice. In those circumstances, the Collector was not bound to grant a hearing, and the refusal was not unreasonable.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant a personal hearing did not vitiate the order.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was invalid for want of a proper show-cause notice and for mention of the wrong statutory provision.

Analysis: A penal notice must not only mention the statutory contravention but must also indicate the penalty proposed to be imposed. The petitioner had not been asked to show cause against the penalty under Section 167(3) of the Sea Customs Act. The reference in the order to Section 167(8) was treated as a bona fide mistake for Section 167(3), but that did not cure the defect in the notice. The omission caused real prejudice.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 500 imposed on the petitioner was illegal and was quashed.

Issue (iv): whether the confiscation of the boat under Section 168 of the Sea Customs Act could stand despite the absence of consideration of mitigating circumstances.

Analysis: The boat used for carrying goods liable to confiscation fell within Section 168. However, the order of confiscation had been made without considering relevant mitigating circumstances, including the absence of a declared port in the vicinity and the bearing of those facts on the degree of culpability. That omission rendered the order vulnerable as an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the boat was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part: the Court upheld the maintainability of the challenge, rejected the objections based on personal hearing and the wording error in the notice, but set aside the penalty and the confiscation order.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under penal customs provisions, the show-cause notice must clearly specify the proposed penalty, and an order of confiscation may be quashed where relevant mitigating circumstances bearing on culpability are ignored.

---