Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1806
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
M/s. India Sales Corporation Chennai & Another
Versus
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Writ Petition No: 8956 of 2012
Decided On : 30-04-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioners:B. Sathish Sundar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K. Ravi Ananda Padmanabhan, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS - CONFISCATION - CROSS EXAMINATION - DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLE OF - VIOLATION OF - ORDER CONFISCATING GOODS AND IMPOSING PENALTY - CHALLENGE TO - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY OF - CESTAT - APPEAL BEFORE - REMEDY AVAILABLE - WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a partnership firm and its managing partner, challenged the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on them for smuggling sandalwood and red sanders under the guise of exporting agarbathies and incense sticks. The petitioners contended that the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the four persons named in the show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' claim for cross-examination of the four persons named in the show cause notices was rejected by the authorities vide its order dated 13.01.2012, which had attained finality. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained as it is not legally maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the four persons named in the show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the petitioners' failure to challenge the order dated 13.01.2012, which rejected their claim for cross-examination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners' claim for cross-examination of the four persons named in the show cause notices was rejected by the authorities vide its order dated 13.01.2012, which had attained finality. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained as it is not legally maintainable. 2. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had failed to challenge the order dated 13.01.2012, which rejected their claim for cross-examination. The court held that the challenge to the order confiscating the goods and imposing penalty on the individuals was a matter to be adjudicated by the appropriate appellate authority, the CESTAT, and that the petitioners should have availed of that remedy before approaching the High Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that the petitioners' claim for cross-examination of the four persons named in the show cause notices was rejected by the authorities vide its order dated 13.01.2012, which had attained finality. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained as it is not legally maintainable. The court also held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had failed to challenge the order dated 13.01.2012, which rejected their claim for cross-examination. The court held that the challenge to the order confiscating the goods and imposing penalty on the individuals was a matter to be adjudicated by the appropriate appellate authority, the CESTAT, and that the petitioners should have availed of that remedy before approaching the High Court.
1. Petitioners are before this Court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in and connected with Order in Original No: 26 / 2012 dated 18.01.2012 in F. No: CAU/DRI/12/2011-Air and quash the same as it is violative of principles of natural justice and reasonableness in the conduct of the adjudication proceedings.
2. The facts, in nutshell, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows :
( i ) 1st petitioner is a partnership firm established in the year 1997 and is an 100% Exported Oriented Unit functioning from the Madras Export Processing Zone, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai. The 2nd petitioner is the Managing Partner of the 1st petitioner firm. The petitioner firm imports, duty free raw material i.e. aromatic chemicals, from France, Dubai, Singapore and Japan, processes and manufactures perfumes, attars, bakhoor powder and sandalwood oil and exports the same. The Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ, Chennai, had issued three licences for manufacture of perfumes and cosmetics besides agarbatis and bakhoor with an annual capacity of 400 M.Ts. Under licence dated 27.03.2003, the 1st petitioner firm imported Aromatic Chemicals for manufacture of perfume cosmetics, agarbattis and bakhoor and under licence dated 26.03.2003, the 1st petitioner firm imports sandalwood logs and roots from M/s. ADEP Impex, Tanzania, for manufacture of Sandalwood oil. It is stated that though under the licence dated 23.03.2004, petitioner firm was permitted to trade in Sandalwood, as it could not be done within the period allotted and therefore, it stood cancelled. The items imported like Aromatic Chemicals Herbs, Sandalwood, etc. are solely and exclusively used in the manufacture of perfumery spryas, bakhoor powder, bakhoor oil, Indian attars and sandalwood oil, which are duly exported. It is stated by the petitioner that every receipt of imported material into the manufacturing facility / factory situated at MEPZ is duly accounted for in the statutory records and accounts maintained at the Factory and subject to check and audit by the jurisdictional officers of Customs, Central Excise and the Development Commissioner and that every export of manufactured items are duly documented in the statutory record, register and books of accounts, which are also checked and cross verified in a strict manner by the aforesaid authorities. In fact, in connection with any export shipment to be made, it is imperative that the documentation and movement of the goods in containers from the factory of the 1st petitioner to the concerned port is monitored and checked at every stage by officers of Customs. The procedure adopted at MEPZ Gate regarding inward entry and outward movement of vehicles carrying goods is the responsibility of the Customs Office situated at the gate. It is stated that the MEPZ Gate is manned by three Preventive Officers in three shifts round the clock under the direct supervision of Superintendent of Customs. The overall control and supervision of the office is at the hands of a Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Besides the Preventive Officers, the Customs formation also has examiners, appraisers posted, who carry out the function of examination and verification of every goods, which enter or exits from the MEPZ. Two registers are maintained at the gate wherein details of imports and exports by the companies situated at MEPZ would be registered respectively. The Registers will have details of Shipping Bills / Bill of Entry and other relevant details pertaining to the goods and transportation thereof. With regard to entry of raw materials for export companies or the goods sent for job work by Export Companies, "passed-in" and "passed-out" stamp will be affixed on the documents accompanying the goods. It is also stated by the petitioners that the goods which are transported for export are affixed with a one time seal of the Officer of Customs, who is present at the t
