TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Revenue Intelligence dated 14 May 2019 under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The impugned order, has denied benefit of concessional rate of duty and levied the differential duty amounting to Rs. 33,18,44,440/- under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest as per section 28AA of the Customs Act. The Additional Director also directed that the goods valued Rs. 31,27,45,604/- are liable for confiscation. Further penalties of Rs. 33,18,44,440/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- have been imposed. 3. The Petitioner No.1 is a proprietorship firm and the Petitioner No.2 is its proprietor. The Petitioners are in the business of trading of Areca nuts and Cardamom from Sri Lanka in the local markets. According to the Petitioners, they had im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta. The Petitioners responded to the show cause notice on 7 May 2018 and sought time to file reply and made a request to appoint a common adjudicator in all the cases since the notice covered imports of three different ports Cochin, Tuticorin and Nhava Sheva. 5. The Petitioners further addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva on 18 December 2018 submitting their preliminary reply. On 5 July 2018, the Additional Director, DRI wrote to the Petitioners informing them that Respondent No.8 has been appointed as a common adjudicator. 6. Thereafter, the Respondent No.8 considered the matter on merits. The Respondent No.8 noted that a personal hearing was fixed on 25 March 2019. Letters of personal hearing were se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint can also be urged in a substantive appeal which remedy is available to the Petitioners under section 129 of the Customs Act. 10. Mr.Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order itself records that the notices were not served on the Petitioners. He submitted that section 153 of the Customs Act lays down modes of service of notice, orders, decision, summons and communication under the Act which, according to the Petitioners, have not been followed by the Respondents. He submitted that once the notice is returned unserved and that the authorities knew about the changed address of the Petitioners as can be seen from the show cause notice, nothing stops the respondent authorities from issuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory remedy, cannot be disputed. But, equally settled is the principle that if the alternate remedy is available, the Writ Court would be slow in exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore, the discretion of the Court in this regard will depend upon the facts of each case. 13. The Petitioners in their petition have not specifically stated as to how they got the copy of the impugned order. The Petitioners refer to a forwarding letter in paragraph-10 of the petition and refer to the impugned order at Exhibit-G. The photocopy of the impugned order which is annexed shows that the same has been marked to Petitioner No.2, the proprietor of Petitioner No.1. Though the Petitioners during their oral arguments have loosely used the ter....