W.P.(MD) No.9164 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.(MD) No.9164 of 2020

and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.8379 and 8380 of 2020

T.Kannudurai

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Commissioner (Appeals),

Office of the Commissioner Customs (Preventive),

1, Williams Road,

Cantonment, Trichy.

2.The Joint Commissioner (CCO),

Office of the Commissioner Customs (Preventive),

1, Williams Road,

Cantonment, Trichy.

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,

Customs Division,

1, Williams Road,

Cantonment, Trichy.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire

records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 2nd

respondent vide his proceedings in C.No.VIII/10/188/2018-Cus.Adj.

Dated 11.07.2019 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Aravindan

Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated

11.07.2019 of the 2^nd respondent/the Joint Commissioner (CCO),

Trichy.

2.By the impugned order, the petitioner has been imposed

penalty of Rs.4,50,00,000/- under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act,

1962. The writ petition has been filed long after the expiry of

limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is

a small time agriculturist and had rented out a small portion of the

property, namely, the Shed, measuring an extent of 300 sq.fts., out

of 1,000/- sq.,fts., to one K.Balamurugan and the remaining portion

was given to one Kishore for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- from 2018

1/5

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

W.P.(MD) No.9164 of 2020

unaware of the fact that the said Kishore was involved in smuggling

and export of tortoises from India.

3.It is submitted that the petitioner has not involved in any

crime so as to warrant penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs

Act, 1962. It is submitted that the respondents have not discharged

the burden of proof that the petitioner was engaged in illegal

activities with the tenants and therefore the petitioner was not

liable to penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. It

is further submitted that the petitioner in his statement has also

clearly explained that he had only heard that the tenant was using

the property, which was rented out by the petitioner for storing

turtles and tortoises. It is submitted that the impugned order

passed by the 2^nd respondent is not well reasoned and therefore

deserves to be set aside.

4.Opposing the prayer, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for

the respondents at the outset submits that the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed on account of latches as it has been filed on

06.08.2020 long after the limitation for filing an appeal before the

Appellate Commissioner had expired, in terms of Section 128 of the

Act. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further

submits that the petitioner had himself admitted in his statement

before the Director of Revenue Intelligence that he had rented out

the premises to the said Kishore for storing turtles and tortoises

and therefore, the petitioner has been rightly imposed penalty under

Section 114(i) of the Act.

5.It is further submitted that during the course of

investigation, the Director of Revenue Intelligence/Zonal Unit

Bangalore with the help of Officers of DRI Trichy and Customs

Officers Trichy, made house search at the petitioner’s premises and

recovered property documents relating to the godown/shed, from which

the officers of DRI BZU recovered 1487 turtles/tortoises on

10.05.2018. The property documents revealed that the petitioner is

the owner and having control over the aforesaid Shed.

6.The learned Senior Standing Counsel has placed reliance on

the decision of