2026 (3) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner no.2 (hereinafter the petitioner) calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner inter alia on the ground of wrong classification of imported goods and short payment of customs duty. 3. The petitioner replied to the said notice. Upon considering the petitioner's reply, the adjudicating authority held against the petitioner. The order in original passed by the adjudicating authority on September 9, 2024 was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) i.e. the appellate authority. The appellate authority has dismissed the petitioner's appeal by the order impugned. Hence this writ petition. 4. Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gation of serving notice on the person concerned and if notices have remained unserved for reasons not attributable to the customs authorities, the customs authorities cannot be faulted. 8. Ms. Chowdhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in reply, invited attention of this Court to Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for mode of service of notice, orders etc. and submitted that there is a provision for deemed service of notice which can be resorted to only in situations where notices which have been put in transit have not returned and nothing contrary has been proved. It was submitted that in the case at hand when the notices evidently returned unserved there was a clear contrary indication that notices had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53 of the said Act of 1962. 11. Conversely if the appellate authority did not notice such returned article and held that service was satisfactorily done, that again is an impeachable decision. In both the aforesaid situation, denial of opportunity of hearing is evident. 12. It is not in dispute that the customs authorities have served the appellate order impugned upon the petitioner through e-mail ( as would appear from page 175 of the writ petition). Therefore, the e-mail address of the petitioner was very well there with the customs authorities. 13. In such view of the matter, once it was clear that notices of hearing of the appeal sent by the customs authorities to the petitioner were not served upon the petitioner, it was incum....