WP(MD)Nos.8574, 8579 & 8581 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 30.09.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.(MD)Nos.8574, 8579 & 8581 of 2021

and

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6456, 6457, 6459 & 6460 of 2021

M/s.Target Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Abdul Majeed Salim,

No.186/4 Coimbatore Industrial Estate,

Kurichi, Coimbatore – 641 021.

... Petitioner in All Cases

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Customs

Custom House,

Tuticorin - 628 004.

2.Additional Director General,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

Chennai Zonal Unit, No.27, Adarsh Towers,

G.N (Chetty) Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai - 600 017.

... Respondents in All Cases

Common Prayer in W.P(MD)No.8574 & 8581 of 2021: Writ Petitions filed

under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writs of

Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned show

cause notices dated 06.12.2012 issued in F.No.VIII/48/21/2010 DRI-

TTN issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.8579 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article

226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus,

directing the 1^st Respondent to return the Bank Guarantees Nos. LG

No.7/2011 dated 07.02.2011 and LG No.8/2011 dated 21.02.2011 and

refund the amount of Rs.66,08,292/- deposited with the 1^st

Respondent.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Derrick Sam

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Aravindan,

Senior Standing Counsel

[In all Writ Petitions]

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the

same, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both

sides, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed

of by this common order.

1/19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

WP(MD)Nos.8574, 8579 & 8581 of 2021

2.For the sake of convenience, the facts as projected by the

petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8574 of 2021 is traversed hereunder:

2.1.The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit at

Coimbatore had seized mineral oil contained in 25 barrels, which

were imported vide Bill of Entry No.2247161 dated 12.10.2010, by

their operation on 21.10.2010, on the suspicion that it was base oil

and not rubber processing oil as claimed by the petitioner.

2.2.In this regard, show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner on 06.12.2012, by the Additional Director General, DRI,

Zonal Unit, Chennai. That show cause notice, after adjudication,

ended in an order-in-original of the respondent dated 20.02.2014.

2.3.Felt aggrieved over the said order-in-original, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai, which

having considered the appeal of the petitioner allowed to the extent

to set aside the order-in-original and remanded the matter back to

the original authority to have a denovo enquiry and to pass orders.

2.4.Pursuant to which, denovo enquiry was conducted and after

denovo, order-in-original was again passed by the respondent on

21.11.2014. Even this order once again was interjected by the

petitioner by way of appeal preferred before the CESTAT. This time

also, the CESTAT, of course, having considered the grounds raised by

the petitioner that, the petitioner was not given the chance of

cross-examining the witnesses or persons concerned, set aside the

order-in-original ie., the order passed in denovo enquiry and once

again remanded the matter back to the original authority.

2.5.In this regard, it is to be noted that, while the CESTAT

passed orders on 03.01.2018, remanding the matter to the original

authority, a direction was given that the adjudication can be

conducted by the original authority after a decision is made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. & others Vs. Union of

India, which was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3.It is to be noted that, after the 2011 amendment, under

which, Section 28 of the Customs Act underwent an amendmen