1987 (6) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess than that shown in the manifest submitted under the Customs Act. A person in charge of the ship satisfied the Customs authorities that the goods in the ship were not for export. The respondents, it is alleged, had passed a bond accepting their liability to pay the duty and penalty, if any. On 4th December, 1973, the Customs authorities issued notices calling upon respondents to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The respondents sought adjournments from time to time, and, apparently some sort of hearing was scheduled for 15th October 1974, at which the respondents were not present. On 7th December 1974, the respondents addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le. Their liability extended to making up for duty not paid. The requisite hearing had been offered. It was the respondents who had failed to turn up for that hearing before the Assistant Collector. In any case, the Orders assailed could be impugned in appeal under the Customs Act itself, and, this not having been done, the court should not entertain the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge negatived the pleas urged on behalf of the appellants. He held that Sections 28 and 147 of the Customs Act applied. The Customs authorities had acted unjustly and inequitably. The rule was made absolute with parties were being left to bear their own costs. 4. Having heard Counsel, we find no substance in the appeal and dismiss the same for the re....