Court quashes order for procedural violations, remits for fresh consideration

The court quashed the impugned order due to illegal actions and procedural violations by the respondent. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the law, with directives to pass final orders within eight weeks. The petitioner's contentions on the nature of the goods were left open for reconsideration. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods imported by the petitioner are freely importable or restricted.
2. Whether the impugned order was served on the petitioner.
3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the expiration of the appeal period.
4. Whether the respondent followed the correct procedure under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Freely Importable or Restricted Goods:
The petitioner, a licensed importer, contended that the second-hand goods imported were freely importable. The respondent argued that since the goods were not capital goods, prior authorization from DGFT was required, leading to their confiscation and a penalty imposition. The court found that the customs authority should have sought clarification from DGFT or mandated the petitioner to do so, rather than interpreting the policy notification on its own. This action was deemed not in accordance with Section 17 of the Customs Act.

2. Service of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner claimed he was never served with the impugned order-in-original, leading to a writ petition to obtain a certified copy. The respondent countered that the order was served on the petitioner’s customs broker. The court noted the amendment to Section 152 of the Customs Act, which treats service on the customs broker as service on the assessee. However, discrepancies in the acknowledgment date raised doubts, but the court did not delve into this issue further.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy of appeal within the limitation period. The petitioner cited Supreme Court decisions affirming that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be ousted. The court referred to the Mahindra and Mahindra case, which outlined parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, such as unfairness, unreasonableness, and violation of natural justice. The court found that the case met these parameters.

4. Procedure under the Customs Act, 1962:
The court highlighted that the customs authority should have followed Section 17 of the Customs Act for verification and assessment. The respondent’s failure to seek clarification from DGFT or mandate the petitioner to do so was deemed a violation of the statutory procedure. The court emphasized that the respondent should have adopted a similar approach as in the case of second-hand Coated paper in rolls, where clarification was sought from DGFT.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found that the order of confiscation was passed without issuing a show cause notice, violating Section 124 of the Customs Act, which mandates a notice and an opportunity for representation and hearing. Although the petitioner had requested the matter be finalized without a show cause notice, the court noted that the fundamental divergence in the parties’ stands necessitated following the statutory procedure. The court ruled that bypassing these steps was impermissible.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order, citing illegal actions and procedural violations by the respondent. The matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the law, with directives to take further steps and pass final orders within eight weeks. The petitioner’s contentions regarding the nature of the goods were left open for reconsideration. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---