Madrasdated High Court · 2025

WP No. 21639 of 2025F.No.DRI- CZU/VIII/48/ENQ-1/INT- 18/ 2023, passed by the 1st respondent herein insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.WP No. 20476 of 2025Calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Original No.12/2025- 26/ COMMISSIONERATE - I dated 17.04.2025 in F.No.DRI- CZU/VIII/48/ENQ-1/INT- 18/ 2023, passed by the 1st respondent herein insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same as illegal, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.WP No. 21639 of 2025For Petitioner(s):Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for K. GopalFor Respondent(s):M/S. M. Santhanaraman Senior Standing Counsel for R1 , R2COMMON ORDERThese writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order-in-original dated 17.04.2025 passed by the first respondent against the respective petitioners. Under the impugned order-in-original, the first respondent has imposed penalty on the respective petitioners as per the provisions of Section 112(a)&(b) of the Customs Act, 19622. The respective petitioners have challenged the impugned order-in-original on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and on the __________Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025ground that the first respondent has pre-determined the issue as they have verbatim reproduced the contents of the show cause notice sent to the respective petitioners earlier in the impugned order-in-original. The petitioners also claim that the replies sent by them have not been considered in the impugned order-in-original. They further claim that they are innocent and no way involved in the incident, which resulted in the confiscation of the gold under the provisions of the Customs Act.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the show cause notice sent to the respective petitioners as well as the impugned order-in-original and would submit that the first respondent has cut, copied and pasted the contents of the show cause notice in the impugned order-in-original and has also not considered the replies sent by the respective petitioners to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent.4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and others [2021 (4) SCC 516] and would submit that cutting, copying and pasting from another __________Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025judgment without giving independent reasons is not permissible as reasons constitute soul of judicial decision. 5. On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents would reiterate the contents of the counter affidavit filed before this Court and would submit that the respective petitioners were collectively involved in the smuggling of huge quantity of gold. According to him, only by following the due procedure and by granting the respective petitioners a fair hearing, the impugned order-in-original came to be passed by the first respondent. He would further submit that since the impugned order-in-original is a reasoned order, the respective petitioners ought to have filed the statutory appeal remedy available under the Customs Act and without exercising the same, they have chosen to file these writ petitions, which are not maintainable.DISCUSSION:-6. Whenever an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or the authority has pre-determined the issue, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case on hand, though the first respondent has acknowledged the receipt of the reply sent by the petitioner in W.P.No.20474 of 2025, the first respondent in the impugned __________Page 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025order-in-original has not considered the said reply and has not given reasons as to why the said reply cannot be accepted. Insofar as the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.21639 and 20476 of 2025 are concerned, in the impugned order-in-original, the first respondent has not acknowledged the receipt of those replies. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record before this Court the postal receipt pertaining to the reply sent by the petitioner in W.P.No.20474 of 2025 to establish that the said reply was infact received by the first respondent. However, as seen from the impugned order-in-original, the replies sent by the other petitioners have not been acknowledged and the first respondent has also not considered and given reasons as to why those replies are not acceptable to the first respondent. 7. As seen from the show cause notice sent to the respective petitioners as well as from the impugned order-in-original, on a prima-facie consideration, this Court finds that the first respondent has verbatim reproduced the contents of the show cause notice in the impugned order-in-original. A comparison chart between the show cause notice and the impugned order-in-original as extracted in the grounds of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are reproduced hereunder:-__________Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025S.NoParagraph in Impugned OrderParagraph in Show Cause Notice__________Page 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 20251Para 1Para 1.12Para 2Para 1.23Para 3Para 1.34Para 4Para 1.45Para 5Para 1.56Para 6Para 1.67Para 7Para 1.78Para 8Para 1.89Para 9Para 1.910Para 10Para 3.111Para 11Para 4 & 512Para 12Para 613Para 13Para 714Para 13.2Para 815Para 13.3Para 916Para 14Para 1017Para 15Para 1118Para 16Para 1219Para 17Para 1320Para 18Para 1421Para 19Para 1522Para 20.1Para 1623Para 20.2Para 1724Para 21Para 1825Para 22Para 1926Para 23Para 2027Para 24Para 2128Para 25.1Para 2229Para 25.2Para 2330Para 26Para 2431Para 27Para 25.132Para 28Para 25.233Para 29Para 2634Para 30Para 2735Para 31Para 2836Para 32Para 2937Para 33Para 30__________Page 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 202538Para 34.1Para 3139Para 34.2Para 3240Para 34Para 34.141Para 36.2Para 34.242Para 36.3Para 34.343Para 36.4Para 34.444Para 37Para 3545Para 37.2Para 35.146Para 38Para 36.147Para 38.2Para 36.248Para 38.3Para 36.349Para 39Para 36.450Para 39.2Para 36.551Para 39.3Para 36.652Para 39.4Para 36.753Para 40Para 37.154Para 40.2Para 37.255Para 41.1Para 37.356Para 41.2Para 37.457Para 42Para 3858Para 43.1Para 39.159Para 43.2Para 39.260Para 44Para 39.361Para 45Para 39.462Para 46Para 40.163Para 47Para 40.264Para 48Para 40.365Para 49Para 40.466Para 50Para 40.667Para 51Para 40.568Para 52Para 33.1 to para 33.27 (re arranged)8. In UPSC's case (cited supra), though the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court, the same yardstick can also be applied for the instant case and in that decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has __________Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025made it clear that a prolific use of the 'cut-copy-paste' function should not become a substitute for substantive reasoning, which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining feature of the judicial process as the reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. 9. In the case on hand, as seen from the impugned order-in-original, the first respondent has cut, copied and pasted the contents of the show cause notice in the impugned order-in-original and the first respondent has not given independent reasoning for arriving at the conclusion. Though the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents would submit that due procedure was followed by the first respondent by considering the written submissions submitted by the respective petitioners through their lawyers, this Court is of the considered view that while passing the impugned order-in-original, the first respondent ought to have considered the replies sent by the respective petitioners and ought to have given adequate reasoning as to why those replies are not acceptable to them. However, as observed earlier, in the impugned order-in-original, there has been a verbatim reproduction of the contents of the show cause notice in the impugned order-in-original. The respective petitioners also contend that they are no way involved in the commission of alleged violation under the Customs Act, as they have categorically stated that they are __________Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025not involved in the smuggling of gold. It is an undisputed fact that gold was not seized from the respective petitioners, but, was seized only from Basheer Ahmed.10. After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors, in the interest of justice, on account of the fact that the principles of natural justice has been violated, this Court deems it fit to quash the impugned order-in-original insofar as the respective petitioners alone are concerned, and remand the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-(a) The impugned order-in-original dated 17.04.2025 passed against the respective petitioners alone is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.(b) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is for the first respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court.__________Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025(c) The first respondent shall pass final orders after affording a fair hearing to the respective petitioners and by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs. 22-08-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRKM__________Page 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21639 of 2025ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.RKMTo1.The CommissionerOf Customs Adjudication Air, Chennai I Commissionerate, Anna International Airprot, New Custome House, Meenambakam, Chennai2.The Additional DirectiorDirectorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonalunit, No. 27 Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, ChennaiWP No. 21639 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 23113 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23114 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23108 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23109 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23115 OF 2025,WMP NO. 24419 OF 2025,WP NO. 20474 OF 2025,WMP NO. 24421 OF 2025,WP NO. 20476 OF 202522-08-2025__________Page 13 of 13