1. Both these writ petitions involve the challenge in respect of notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive to the Sub-Registrar office, Vadakkancherry under Rule 9 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues (Rules 1995) (hereinafter referred as the Rules), requesting the Sub Registrar not to allow mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with the properties described in the said document without permission from the proper officer. Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No. 28292/2011 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.31429/2011 are the said notices. Since the challenge in the writ petitions is with reference to the same notice the writ petitions are disposed together. The exhibits referred hereunder are as shown in W.P.(C) No.28292/2011 unless otherwise stated. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are commonly referred as Petitioners unless otherwise stated.

2. W.P.(C) No.28292/2011 is filed by the children of late Sri. Aboobacker and W.P.(C) No.31429/2011 is filed by the wife of the aforesaid Aboobacker against whom the Department had imposed anti-dumping duty for a sum of Rs. 97,35,379/-.

3. The facts involved in the case disclose that M/s. Malabar Enterprises imported CF lambs into India from China and the goods were cleared as per bill of entry dated 28.12.2001. In the meantime, it was noticed that Govt. of India had issued notification No.128/2001 dated 21.12.2001 imposing anti-dumping duty on such imports. Without noticing the above notification, the goods were cleared by the aforesaid Aboobacker as Proprietor of Malabar Enterprises after paying customs duty of Rs.6,93,073/-

4. When the fact regarding non-levy of anti-dumping duty was noticed by the Department, they issued show cause notice and after considering the same, orders were issued for imposing a duty of Rs.97,35,379/-under S. 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said demand had become final and there is an obligation on the part of the aforesaid Aboobacker to pay the said amount.

5. Since the aforesaid payment had not been paid by the aforesaid Sri.Aboobacker Ext.P8 came to be issued.

6. According to the petitioners, the property described in Ext.P8 does not belong to the said Aboobacker and it is the private property of the petitioners. According to them, their private properties cannot be the subject matter of any recovery of dues payable by Aboobacker as Proprietor of M/s. Malabar Enterprises.

7. The Department has filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that though certain items of properties are purchased in the name of the petitioners, the same are purchased with the income derived by Sri. Aboobacker, who was a business man and therefore the properties actually belongs to Aboobacker and for that reason they are entitled to proceed against the said properties. It is also stated that as on 31.12.2011, the total amount due with interest is Rs.2,14,50,641/-It is further stated that Ext.P1 property was purchased in the name of the petitioners while the children were minors. Ext.P2 property was transferred by Aboobacker to the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28292/2011 after the demand notice for short levy of customs duty. Ext.P3 property was also purchased in the name of the first petitioner while he was a student. Similarly, Ext.P4 property was purchased jointly in the name of the first petitioner when he was a student. Ext.P5 property was purchased jointly in the name of the petitioners. According to the Department Exts.P3, P4 and P5 properties were purchased after the receipt of demand notice for short levy of customs duty by Sri. Aboobacker.

8. Yet another contention is that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31429/2011 had filed O.S. No. 1171/2005 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, inter alia seeking a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property which was purchased in her name. The said suit was dismissed on a finding that the plaintiff was not in a position to prove that she is entitled for the de