Review petition allowed challenging customs penalty due to 11-year delay violating natural justice principles under Section 114(iii)

MP HC allowed review petition challenging penalty under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. Court found violation of principles of natural justice as adjudication of show cause notice took over 11 years without explanation. Earlier writ petitions were dismissed in limine on grounds of alternative remedy without examining natural justice violation. HC relied on precedents and held petitioners established exception regarding natural justice violation due to inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing the review petition and the question of admission based on the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Condonation of Delay:
The review petition was filed challenging the judgment/order dated 09.01.2023, which was dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. The delay in filing the review petition was explained by the petitioners as being caused by the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex Court. The delay was considered sufficiently explained, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed.

Question of Admission:
The writ petition filed by M/s Rama Phosphates Limited challenged an adjudication order imposing a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy was erroneous, citing exceptions recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The issue of limitation under Section 28(9)(b) of the Customs Act was raised, emphasizing that the dismissal of the writ petition was contrary to established legal principles. The Apex Court granted liberty to file a review before the High Court, acknowledging errors in the impugned order and allowing withdrawal of the SLP with liberty to challenge the order in case of an adverse decision in the review. The Court found that the petitioners had been able to carve out an exception regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, as the adjudication process took an unreasonably long time without proper explanation. Consequently, the order dismissing the writ petition was set aside, and the review petition was allowed.

Conclusion:
The judgment allowed the review petition, setting aside the order dismissing the writ petition and all connected review petitions. The Court directed the listing of all petitions for hearing on admission and ordered the placement of a copy of the order in the record of the connected petitions.

---