TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that he had intimated so. But no proof has been shown or filed to support it. - said plea is also rejected - Hence, considering all these aspects, this Court opines that the petitioner is not diligently prosecuting the matter. Since there is lack of bona fides, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - Writ Petition No.27313 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2012 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR J. For Petitioner: Mr. Joseph Prabakar For Respondents: Mr. K. Mohanamurali ----- ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-in-Original No.18452/2012, dated 07.03.2012. At the first instance, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs made a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perate in conducting the matter. Hence, he proceeded to pass orders on merits. In the result, the authority passed an order of confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The following order came to be passed. "(i) I confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) However, I give option to redeem the goods upon payment of fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I order closure of test bonds execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 5-A, dated 19.03.2010 in respect of F.No.TA/memo No.108032/LAD-CRA-GRSA ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No.11406/2010 to state that the address for communication of that order was as follows:- "M/s.ETA General Private Ltd., New No.71, Old No.63, Sterling Road, 3rd Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034." But in the present case, the impugned order has been sent and despatched to the wrong address namely, "M/s. ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Seethakathi Chambers, 5th Floor, 688, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006." There is no building in the said address as the building has been demolished in the year 2009 itself and the company is not functioning i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs and notices were issued from time to time as is extracted earlier and final order was passed. From the original file, it is seen that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5B) and order of remand were passed on 07.03.2012 and despatched on 08.03.2012 by speed post acknowledgement due. That letter was addressed to ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Seethakathi Chambers, 5th Floor, 688, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Therefore, the communication was sent only to the address as it has been referred to by the petitioner in the original proceedings as well as in the appeal memorandum. Therefore, the plea of non-service of notice or the impugned order to correct address is a fallacy. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y change the address unless there is a specific request from the party that their address has been changed. Therefore, service on the address shown as per the record is a service of the order in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act. No other method is permissible. The department has shown by the original file to show despatch on 08.03.2012 by speed post acknowledgement due. Therefore, the service is in order. This Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that there was no proper service. 13. The next ground is the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice stating that no personal hearing was granted. Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order clearly gives the various dates on which notice of personal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
