Writ challenge to duty demand and confiscation failed after late factual plea and no basis for remand.

A writ challenge to duty demand, confiscation and penalty failed where the plea that only 11 computers had been cleared was raised for the first time at the appellate stage and not before the original authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had delayed the adjudication proceedings and later approached the Court after further delay. On the available records, including invoices showing clearance of 23 computers with accessories, the adjudicating authority had sufficient material to decide the matter. In these circumstances, no procedural unfairness or factual basis was shown to justify interference or remand, and the demand and consequential order were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the duty demand, confiscation and penalty was liable to succeed on the grounds that only 11 computers were cleared instead of 23 and that the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication for want of opportunity.

Analysis: The plea that only 11 computers had been cleared was not raised before the original authority and was introduced only at the appellate stage. The petitioner had also delayed the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and approached the Court after a further lapse of time. The adjudicating authority had examined the available records, and the invoices referred to in the counter showed clearance of 23 computers including accessories. In these circumstances, no ground was made out for interference or remand.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The demand and consequential order were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

---