High Court · 2025

has been redetermined with consequential duty liability, confirmed the demand of differential duty, disallowed the benefit of Notification no. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, held the goods imported in the bills of entry liable to confiscation, however, imposed redemption fine, imposed equal penalty under Section 114-A and 114-AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Submissions have been made that the petitioners were not granted sufficient opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice dated 21.12.2023 and adjudication order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. It is indicated that counsel for the petitioner filed an application dated 12.07.2024 through e-mail inter-alia indicating that on

27.06.2024 counsel had requested to grant personal hearing date after a period of 6 - 8 weeks as the documents in the case were extensive and requested for grant of six weeks time to prepare effective reply and the date fixed on 12.07.2024 be adjourned. Despite receipt of the said communication, no next date was informed to the petitioner, as a consequence, the reply could not be filed, which resulted in passing of the ex-parte order-in-original dated 19.12.2024.

4. Further submission has been made that once an application seeking adjournment was filed, it was incumbent on the respondent to have fixed a date for filing of the reply and inform the same to the petitioners and failure to do the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and on that count alone, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plea raised is baseless. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued on 21.12.2023 and the petitioners were called upon to show cause in writing within thirty days of receipt of the notice. Whereafter, dates for personal hearing in the case were fixed on 27.02.2024,

02.04.24, 27.06.2024 and 12.07.2024 and only noticee Mr. Anil Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Anil Kumar & Company appeared on

27.02.2024 and submitted that he will submit his reply soon, he again attended personal hearing on 02.04.2024 and reiterated the same, however, no reply was received from the said noticee and none of the other six noticees availed the opportunity of personal hearing.

6. Submission has been made that after the last date 12.07.2024 was fixed and e-mail was sent seeking adjournment for 6-8 weeks, the petitioner was required to appear before the authority within the said time sought by it. Despite the fact that the order impugned was passed after passage of five months, no reply was filed, which necessarily means that the petitioner apparently had no interest in filing reply to the show cause notice/defence against the show cause notice and therefore, the plea raised is baseless.

7. Further submission has been made that the order was passed on

19.12.2024 and the petition has been filed on 03.04.2024 and in case the petitioners had a genuine grievance qua purported non grant of opportunity of personal hearing, they would have filed appeal/immediately rushed to this Court, which has not happened, which reflects that non filing of the reply was deliberate.

8. Learned Standing Counsel emphasized that the order impugned is open to appeal, which remedy could have been availed by the petitioners/can be availed by them and no case for bypassing the remedy has been made out and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

9. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Undisputed facts are that the show cause notice was issued on

21.12.2023 and reply was required to be filed within a period of thirty days. Whereafter, four dates were fixed by the adjudicating authority, however, except for seeking time of six - eight weeks, nothing was done by the petitioners. On 12.07.2024 when the hearing was fixed again time of six - eight weeks were sought and thereafter, apparently, the petitioners choose not to care for the pending proceedings for adjudication inasmuch as though the order was passed on 19.12.2024 i.e. almost after five months, it is not the case of the petitioners at any time during the said period of five months, the petitioners approached the authority with the reply and/or sought opportunity of personal hearing.

11. The plea raised that once the application seeking adjournment was filed, the onus was on the respondent to thereafter communicate the next date and failure thereof on the part of the respondent in this regard, the petitioners were not required to make any enquiry and/or attempt to file reply/seek personal hearing cannot be countenanced.

12. Such plea can be possibly raised where the petitioners had sought six - eight weeks time to file reply and before expiry of the said six - eight weeks, the order impugned was passed.

13. Once time was sought of six - eight weeks, it was incumbent on the petitioners to have approached the authority with the reply and thereafter, seek personal hearing. Purported waiting for a communication for five months on the part of the adjudicating authority, cannot be countenanced.

14. Further, the conduct of the petitioners in taking the proceedings casually is writ large as even after the order was passed on

19.12.2024 it has taken the petitioners over three and half month in filing the petition before this Court seeking to question the purported violation of principles of natural justice.

15. In view of overall conduct of the petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, we do not find any reason to conclude that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged.

16. Besides the above, the petitioners have alternative remedy of filing an appeal and no reason worth the name has been indicated in the petition for bypassing the said alternative remedy except making bald averments that the petitioners have no equal efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which assertions also cannot be taken at face value.

17. In view of above discussions, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

has been redetermined with consequential duty liability, confirmed the demand of differential duty, disallowed the benefit of Notification no. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, held the goods imported in the bills of entry liable to confiscation, however, imposed redemption fine, imposed equal penalty under Section 114-A and 114-AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Submissions have been made that the petitioners were not granted sufficient opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice dated 21.12.2023 and adjudication order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. It is indicated that counsel for the petitioner filed an application dated 12.07.2024 through e-mail inter-alia indicating that on

27.06.2024 counsel had requested to grant personal hearing date after a period of 6 - 8 weeks as the documents in the case were extensive and requested for grant of six weeks time to prepare effective reply and the date fixed on 12.07.2024 be adjourned. Despite receipt of the said communication, no next date was informed to the petitioner, as a consequence, the reply could not be filed, which resulted in passing of the ex-parte order-in-original dated 19.12.2024.

4. Further submission has been made that once an application seeking adjournment was filed, it was incumbent on the respondent to have fixed a date for filing of the reply and inform the same to the petitioners and failure to do the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and on that count alone, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plea raised is baseless. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued on 21.12.2023 and the petitioners were called upon to show cause in writing within thirty days of receipt of the notice. Whereafter, dates for personal hearing in the case were fixed on 27.02.2024,

02.04.24, 27.06.2024 and 12.07.2024 and only noticee Mr. Anil Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Anil Kumar & Company appeared on

27.02.2024 and submitted that he will submit his reply soon, he again attended personal hearing on 02.04.2024 and reiterated the same, however, no reply was received from the said noticee and none of the other six noticees availed the opportunity of personal hearing.

6. Submission has been made that after the last date 12.07.2024 was fixed and e-mail was sent seeking adjournment for 6-8 weeks, the petitioner was required to appear before the authority within the said time sought by it. Despite the fact that the order impugned was passed after passage of five months, no reply was filed, which necessarily means that the petitioner apparently had no interest in filing reply to the show cause notice/defence against the show cause notice and therefore, the plea raised is baseless.

7. Further submission has been made that the order was passed on

19.12.2024 and the petition has been filed on 03.04.2024 and in case the petitioners had a genuine grievance qua purported non grant of opportunity of personal hearing, they would have filed appeal/immediately rushed to this Court, which has not happened, which reflects that non filing of the reply was deliberate.

8. Learned Standing Counsel emphasized that the order impugned is open to appeal, which remedy could have been availed by the petitioners/can be availed by them and no case for bypassing the remedy has been made out and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

9. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Undisputed facts are that the show cause notice was issued on

21.12.2023 and reply was required to be filed within a period of thirty days. Whereafter, four dates were fixed by the adjudicating authority, however, except for seeking time of six - eight weeks, nothing was done by the petitioners. On 12.07.2024 when the hearing was fixed again time of six - eight weeks were sought and thereafter, apparently, the petitioners choose not to care for the pending proceedings for adjudication inasmuch as though the order was passed on 19.12.2024 i.e. almost after five months, it is not the case of the petitioners at any time during the said period of five months, the petitioners approached the authority with the reply and/or sought opportunity of personal hearing.

11. The plea raised that once the application seeking adjournment was filed, the onus was on the respondent to thereafter communicate the next date and failure thereof on the part of the respondent in this regard, the petitioners were not required to make any enquiry and/or attempt to file reply/seek personal hearing cannot be countenanced.

12. Such plea can be possibly raised where the petitioners had sought six - eight weeks time to file reply and before expiry of the said six - eight weeks, the order impugned was passed.

13. Once time was sought of six - eight weeks, it was incumbent on the petitioners to have approached the authority with the reply and thereafter, seek personal hearing. Purported waiting for a communication for five months on the part of the adjudicating authority, cannot be countenanced.

14. Further, the conduct of the petitioners in taking the proceedings casually is writ large as even after the order was passed on

19.12.2024 it has taken the petitioners over three and half month in filing the petition before this Court seeking to question the purported violation of principles of natural justice.

15. In view of overall conduct of the petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, we do not find any reason to conclude that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged.

16. Besides the above, the petitioners have alternative remedy of filing an appeal and no reason worth the name has been indicated in the petition for bypassing the said alternative remedy except making bald averments that the petitioners have no equal efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which assertions also cannot be taken at face value.

17. In view of above discussions, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad