The failure to serve a show-cause notice at the correct address constitutes a breach of natural justice, necessitating remand for a fair hearing.

ORDER :

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mathur for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. C.B.Gupta for the respondents.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order-in-Original dated 24.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2- Additional Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad whereby, the order of confiscation of Foreign Currency worth 32m049 USD was passed under sections 111(f), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act,1962 [‘the Act,1962’ for short] along with confiscation of the goods i.e. Black Colour Trolley handbag used for carrying and concealing foreign currency recovered/seized under punchnama dated 06.10.2022 under section 119 of the Act,1962 including imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh on the petitioner under section 112(a)(i) of the Act,1962.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of United States of America. The petitioner came to India from Atlanta on 06.10.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Village:- Ashi, Dist. Anand, Gujarat and was carrying 32049 USD in his hand baggage so as to get repaired his ancestral home.

3.1 During immigration, respondent No.1 seized currency from the petitioner and a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that the show-cause notice was never received by the petitioner as the same was sent to his residential address at Anand which was locked as the petitioner had returned back to USA.

3.2 Respondent No.2 thereafter passed impugned Order-in-Original on 24.05.2023.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner again visited India between 20.05.2023 and 09.06.2023, he made an inquiry on 01.06.2023 with an advocate and it was transpired that a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 was issued which was never intimated to the petitioner. The petitioner also filed reply to the show-cause notice on 06.06.2023. During the course of hearing on 15.09.2023, it was informed that the impugned Order-in-Original was passed on 24.05.2023.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 which was passed ex-parte in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mathur appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has, in the affidavit-in-reply filed pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, categorically admitted that the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 issued to the petitioner at the available address on record had returned back undelivered with a remark “insufficient address”. It was submitted that thereafter, the said notice was affixed on the notice board of the Custom House as per provision of section 153(e) of the Act,1962 and therefore, the petitioner was never aware about the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2023 nor the petitioner was served with the copy of the order dated 24.05.2023.

4.1 It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner prays for remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority- respondent No.2 so as to enable the petitioner to file reply to the show-cause notice and to avail the opportunity of hearing to comply with the principles of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. C.B.Gupta for the respondent submitted that the petitioner never informed the department about the change of address till the case is adjudicated which clearly shows mala fide intention of the petitioner to delay the process.

5.1 It was submitted that when the foreign currency was seized on arrival of the petitioner on 06.10.2022. The petitioner was aware about the initiation of the proceedings and petitioner never bothered to take care of the issue of seizure of the currency till he returned to India in the month of June,2023.

5.2 It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has intentionally avoided the adjudication proceedings and therefore, the impugned order is not required to be inter