TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question in this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to Section 153(1) of the Customs Act which enables the Authority to serve the notice not only on the petitioner but also on his customs broker. The imports in this case have been taken place only through an authorised customs house agent namely Zion Logistics. Admittedly, in this case, the Authority has not served the notice on the petitioner's customs house agent. Section 153(3) of the Customs Act is not a conclusive presumption. It is rebuttable in nature. The petitioner had clearly averred that they had not received the notices issued by the first respondent. They have also stated that they had shifted the registered office way back in May ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN For Petitioner : Mr. N. Viswanathan (in all W.Ps.) For R1 to R3 : Mr. Aravindan (in all W.Ps.) COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions, though pertain to different subjects, can be disposed of by answering a single question of law that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is one and the same. The writ petitioner had imported certain goods in the year 2016 subject to certain export obligations. Export obligations were to be fulfilled within 18 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with law. 6. This prayer is strongly and vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. They have also filed the typed set of papers. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the orders impugned in these writ petitions cannot be faulted. According to him, they are certainly not vulnerable on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Materials have been placed before me to indicate that the notices were sent through speed post. The learned Standing Counsel draws my attention not only to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, but also to Section 153 (3) of the Customs Act and called upon me to apply the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... broker. The imports in this case have been taken place only through an authorised customs house agent namely Zion Logistics. 11. The petitioner's counsel states that the first respondent could have as well given notice to the said broker and that would have been in total compliance of the statutory requirements set out in Section 153(1) of the Customs Act. Admittedly, in this case, the Authority has not served the notice on the petitioner's customs house agent. Section 153(3) of the Customs Act is not a conclusive presumption. It is rebuttable in nature. The petitioner had clearly averred that they had not received the notices issued by the first respondent. They have also stated that they had shifted the registered office way ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they had admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the impugned orders were served on them by another authority some time in November 2019. He states that nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging the impugned orders immediately thereafter. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the impugned orders were passed by invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the said order is appealable, the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 60 days. An Appellate Authority could have condoned the delay by another period of 60 more days. In this case, the petitioner has chosen to move this Court after the limitation period had totally expired, when the petitioner's ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g circumstances that (A.1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction and by assuming jurisdiction which there exist none, or (A.2) Has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction and by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (A.3) Has acted in flagrant disregard to law or Rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified. (B) Resultantly, there is failure of justice or it has resulted into gross injustice. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that this decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was followed in quite a few decisions of the Madras High Court. 17. This Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
