Sri. Avaduth Patil vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Avaduth Patil, proprietor of M/s Kerala Gold, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated April 7, 2022, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. This order confiscated 40 gold bars (4000 grams total) valued at Rs. 1,57,52,000.00 and imposed a penalty. The seizure occurred on November 21, 2019. The petitioner contended that the confiscation and penalty were imposed without proper investigation, without issuing a show cause notice to him as the owner, and without considering his replies, thus violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that notices were indeed issued to both the owner and the purchaser, as indicated in paragraph 58 of the impugned order.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order-in-original dated April 7, 2022, is an appealable order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that a similar appeal had already been filed by another noticee and was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. While acknowledging the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of natural justice due to the alleged non-issuance of a show cause notice, the Court refrained from entering into this contentious issue. Instead, the Court emphasized that when an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute, the petitioner should avail such statutory remedy. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to the forum of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Joint Commissioner in issuing order-in-original No. 053/2022 dated April 7, 2022, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without considering his replies, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as the owner of the confiscated goods, a notice ought to have been issued to him, and its absence violated the principles of natural justice. He sought entertainment of the writ petition on this ground. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, contended that paragraph 58 of the impugned order indicated that notices were issued to both the owner and the purchaser, disputing the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notice.