Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 556 of 1982, decided on 28th June, 1982.

‑‑ Art. 9‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 32 (2)‑Deputy Collector Customs, on basis of telex received from Thailand issuing show‑cause notice on petitioner for obtaining clearance of consignments by filing false declaration‑Petitioners disowning telex and moving application before Deputy Collector for issuing Commission to examine partner or representative of firm but Deputy Collector declining‑Petitioners without availing themselves of remedies provided in Customs Act filing writ petition with prayer that they. are not being provided with opportunity to meet allegations contained in show‑cause notice and in case they are imposed penalty, they will not be able to pay on account of huge amount‑Remedies by way of filing application, appeal and revision available in Customs Act and these can be availed off by petitioners‑No interference, in writ jurisdiction, held, called for in circumstances‑Petition dismissed.

Abdul Sattar Silat for Petitioners.

This is a petition, in which the petitioners jointly have impugned 21 show‑cause notices (Anexures A/l to A/21) issued by the Deputy Controller of Customs (Valuation) under section 32 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 on the allegation that the petitioners obtained the clearance of the consignments covered by the above show‑cause notices by filing false) declarations. It seems that according to the petitioners the above show cause notices were issued on the basis of a telex allegedly received from the owner of Messrs Amardas Champion Ltd. Part, Bangkok, Thailand.

In the proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of the above show‑cause notices, the petitioners moved an application before the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valuation) praying that a Commission be issued to examine the partner or a representative of the above firm as the said firm had disowned the alleged telex, inter alias through their letter dated 26th May, 1982. The petitioners' above request has been declined by the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valuation) and, therefore the petitioners have filed this petition.

2. In support of the above petition the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that since the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valua tion) i.e. respondent No. 1 is not providing fair opportunity to the peti tioners to meet the allegations contained win the above' show‑cause notices the petitioners have to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been further contended that in case the respondent No. I will impose penalty, the petitioners may not be in a position to pay the‑same on account of the huge amount.

In our view the above contentions are devoid of any force. In case. the respondent No. 1 has declined to issue the commission for examining Messrs Amardas Champi Ltd., the petitioners are free to move another application before the respondent No. 1 requesting him to permit they petitioners to produce the witness at their own cost on the date of hearing. Even if the above request of the petitioners is declined, they tray challenge the adverse order if any passed by respondent No. 1 in an appeal which is provided under the Customs Act or may take up the matter in revision. In our view we cannot interfere at this stage when the proceedings are still in progress and it cannnot be said with certainty whether the order of respondent No. 1 will be gainst the petitioners or will be in their favour.

For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.