A penalty order remains valid if the notice provides sufficient information regarding the specific contravention and the individual's role, despite technical omissions in citing sub-clauses. Smuggled goods intended for evasion are legally classified as prohibited, justifying penalties for improper importation and handling.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1 In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Order-in-Original dated 06.11.2025 imposing penalty of Rs.4,46,47,485/- by invoking the provisions of Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”).

2 At the outset, on the objections raised by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Shashvata Shukla on the maintainability of the petition, as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, we have called upon learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for the petitioner to satisfy this Court in this regard. In response to this, he has submitted that since the petitioner is challenging the impugned order as the same is passed de hors the statutory provisions, the writ petition would be maintainable.

3 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

3.1 The petitioner, who is dealing in the business of embroidery machines was subjected to investigation along with other persons for smuggling of gold in the form of paste.

3.2 On the intervening night of 28/29.04.2023, the Special Operation Group (SOG), Surat Police intercepted a car bearing registration No. GJ-03-BA-5838 near S.K.Nagar Chokdi, Surat. There were two passengers who had arrived from Surat International Airport in Air India Express Flight No. IX-172 dated 28.04.2023 and upon interception and personal search conducted by the SOG Police, gold in paste form weighing 7158 grams in total, comprising 3582 grams was recovered from one Shri Fenil Rajeshbhai Mavani and 3576 grams was recovered from Shri Nirav Ramnikbhai Davariya who had arrived from Sharjah.

3.3 There were other two persons who were the occupants of the vehicle from whom nothing was recovered. Upon completion of the panchnama, the said four individuals were arrested. After the production of such individuals before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short “the DRI”), Regional Unit, Surat, took them into custody. The statement of Shri Fenil Rajeshbhai Mavani was recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein, he had narrated the modus of smuggling of goods which were handed over to them in Dubai by one Shri Umesh Rameshbhai Bhikadiya. Similar statement was given by Shri Nirav Ramnikbhai Davariya who was named by Shri Fenil Mavani.

3.4 Further statements were recorded of the persons who were involved. As investigation gradually proceeded, the name of the petitioner was unearthed during the investigation, and thereafter, he was arrested and his custody was taken by the Officers of the D.R.I, Regional Unit, Surat.

3.5 Ultimately, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice along with the other persons who were involved in smuggling of the goods under Section 124 of the Act, dated 22.05.2024. The show-cause notice mentions roles of each of the individuals, including the petitioner. The petitioner submitted detailed reply along with the supporting documents on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, the respondent has passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 06.11.2025 imposing a penalty of Rs.4,46,47,485/- under the provisions of Section 112 of the Act.

4 Learned advocate Mr.Hardik Vora, has confined his argument to the applicability of statutory provisions of the Customs Act, more particularly, Section 112 of the Act.

4.1 It is submitted that the provisions of Section 112 of the Act, refers to Clauses (a) and (b) relating to the improper importation of goods and further below Clause(b) there are five sub-clauses and since the petitioner has been imposed the penalty under Clause(i), the competent authority was required to issue the show-cause notice inviting the attention of the petitioner to the imposition of penalty under Sub-clause(b) of Section 112 of the Act and since the same is not done, it runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, U.P. , [2006] taxmann.com 857 (SC).

4.2 Further, it is submitted that the show-cause notice do