2020 (8) TMI 298 - HC - Customs

Court directs Customs authorities to consider petitioner's reply on differential duty demand promptly, ensuring fair opportunity.

M/s. Binary Holdings, Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports), The Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Chennai, The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Chennai

The Court did not delve into the maintainability issue of the writ petition challenging the Mahazar as the respondents were proceeding with the demand of ... Maintainability of petition, challenging the Mahazar - seizure of certain goods relating to parts of sewing machine - petitioner pays a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs and also furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of ₹ 1.80 lakhs - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the writ petition could be maintained or not does not require consideration at this stage, since the respondents have chosen to proceed with the demand of the differential duty and the second respondent had also issued a show cause notice in this regard on 27.10.2017, to which the petitioner claims to have given his reply on 15.12.2017. If the respondents are directed to further adjudicate on this issue, the ends of justice could be secured. As such, without going into the question as to whether the writ petition could be maintained, there shall be a direction to the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate, Chennai - 600002, to consider the petitioner's reply dated 15.12.2017, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 27.10.2017 and take further course of proceedings in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner - Petition disposed off. Issues involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the Mahazar2. Direction to the Customs authorities to consider the petitioner's reply and proceed with the demand of the differential dutyAnalysis:1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the Mahazar:The petitioner was aggrieved against the Mahazar dated 01.07.2014, related to the seizure of goods. The Court had earlier directed for the removal of the lock and seal, and release of goods upon certain conditions. The petitioner had complied with the interim order, and the goods were released. However, the second respondent issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty, to which the petitioner replied. The Standing Counsel for the first respondent argued that the writ petition challenging the Mahazar was not maintainable. The Court did not delve into the maintainability issue, as the respondents were proceeding with the demand of the differential duty. The Court directed the Customs authorities to further adjudicate on this issue to ensure justice.2. Direction to the Customs authorities:The Court directed the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs to consider the petitioner's reply dated 15.12.2017 in response to the show cause notice dated 27.10.2017. The Customs authorities were instructed to proceed in accordance with the law and provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity. The Court mandated that this consideration should be completed within 12 weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the Court allowed for a personal hearing through video conferencing if necessary. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.