Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner in the writ petition is an importer engaged in the import of used Digital Multifunction Machines and their accessories, through various ports in India, including the Cochin Port. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of the Commissioner of Customs, which directs a confiscation of the old and used Digital Multifunction Printers/Devices imported by the petitioner under cover of 24 Bills of Entry, and permits the redemption of the same, solely for the purposes of re-export and on payment of a fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/- under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. In the order, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not avail the option to redeem the goods for purposes of re-export, the goods will be destroyed as per the guidelines issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board in the presence of the officers of the Customs Authorities as also the Pollution Control Board. The said order also imposes separate penalties on the importer as also the various directors of the company in question. In the writ petition, the challenge against Ext order is primarily on the ground of alleged violation of the rules of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner that, on an earlier occasion, and prior to the adjudication of the issue by the customs  authority, they had approached this Court through W.P.(C). No.213/2017, and this Court had by Ext.P4 judgment, refused to permit the clearance of the goods, as sought for by the petitioner, and directed the customs authority to complete the adjudication process expeditiously. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 judgment of the Single Judge, the petitioner approached the Division Bench through W.A.No.286/2017, and the Division Bench which considered the appeal, by Ext.P5 judgment, took note of the plea of the petitioner that it was ready to waive the issuance of a show cause notice, and directed the petitioner to appear for a hearing before the respondents on 5.02.2017. But for the said modification, the directions of the Single Judge as regards the adjudication of the matter was confirmed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. It would appear that, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner of Customs for a hearing on 15.02.2017. On that date, however, they were served with a show cause notice calling upon them to submit a reply, within a period of ten days. While the petitioner initially refused to accept the show cause notice, and approached this Court seeking a review of Ext.P5 judgment in the wake of subsequent developments, the said review petition was subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner, thereafter, accepted the show cause notice, and also filed a reply to the show cause notice,  within the time granted therein. The reply filed was over and in addition to the detailed statement that they had already filed on 15.02.2017, on which date they had appeared before the Commissioner of Customs. The adjudication proceedings, thereafter, culminated in Ext.P10 order, which is impugned in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, while passing Ext.P10 order, the Commissioner of Customs did not grant them a further opportunity of hearing, after the date fixed for furnishing the reply to the show cause notice. It is under these circumstances, that they impugn the said order, on the ground of alleged violation of the rules of natural justice.