1990 (11) TMI 168 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of proceedings under Sec. 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
Validity of extension of time for investigation under Section 110(2)
Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves a reference made by a learned Single Judge regarding the interpretation of proceedings under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Single Judge observed discrepancies in the views expressed by various High Courts and referred the matter to a Division Bench for clarification. The question raised was whether proceedings under Chapter XIV should end or not be initiated based on the validity of an order made by the Collector under Section 110(2) and the return of goods without an extension of time. The Division Bench found that this question did not arise in the specific case before them, involving exporters of textiles in Bangalore who were issued a notice under Section 110(2) by the Collector of Customs. The petitioners failed to respond adequately to the notice, leading to an ex-parte order by the Collector to extend the investigation period. Subsequently, adjudication proceedings were initiated under Section 124 of the Act, and the petitioners challenged the proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court deliberated on whether to interfere with the ongoing proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs. It noted the lack of cooperation from the petitioners during the investigation period, leading to the extension of time for proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of approaching the Court with clean hands and in a timely manner when seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, the Court concluded that they had not made efforts to expedite the disposal of their petitions. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions, allowing the adjudication proceedings to continue as initiated by the Collector of Customs under Section 124 of the Act.

The judgment highlighted the principle that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is granted to litigants who approach the Court with clean hands and in a timely manner. The Court emphasized the need for litigants to actively participate in legal proceedings and not unduly delay the resolution of their cases. The judgment also acknowledged a separate issue in one of the petitions regarding ownership of goods, stating that it was a factual matter to be determined by the Collector of Customs. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitions, allowing the Collector to proceed with the adjudication proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.