Dismissed

The Union of India through the Comm. of Customs(Preventive) v. Raj Kumar Mondal

Calcutta HC15 Jun 2023APO/100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Appellate Jurisdiction matter, the High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appeal preferring to the writ petitioner against an order quashing a customs adjudication for lack of notice. The Court held that extending time under the Customs Act and facing this appeal were not sufficient to succeed. The appeal and connected applications were disposed of, but authorities were directed to pro

What did the court decide?

The appeal and connected applications stood disposed of; authorities directed to proceed against the delinquent in accordance with law.

The Union of India through the Comm. of… — Customs and Excise | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

OD-28

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

APO/100/2018

¶5

IA No.GA/1/2016 (Old No.GA/938/2016), GA/2/2016 (Old No.939/2016)

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

(PREVENTIVE)

-Versus-

RAJ KUIMAR MONDAL

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK AND

¶12

The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI Date : 15^th June, 2023.

¶13

Appearance : Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. ...for the appellant..

¶14

The Court: Supplementary affidavit filed in Court be taken on record.

¶15

For the ends of justice, the causes shown in the application for condonation

¶16

of delay are accepted as sufficient and the delay is condoned.

¶17

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is disposed of. The appeal is taken up for consideration on merits.

¶18

The appeal is directed against an order dated February 5, 2016 passed in the writ petition.

¶19

By the impugned order, the learned Judge noted that, notice of hearing in respect of a show-cause notice dated July 16, 2015 was received by the writ petitioner on July 21, 2015 when the date of hearing thereof was fixed on July 20, 2015. Consequently, the learned Judge found that the writ petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and proceeded to request the Commissioner

¶20

¶21

of Customs (Preventive) to afford the writ petitioner a hearing, upon reasonable prior notice, within four weeks from date and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶22

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that, subsequent to the first showcause notice dated July 6, 2015, a decision dated July 21, 2015 was taken by which time was extended under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, within the extended time, a second show-cause notice dated January 22, 2016 was issued and order of adjudication dated September 22, 2017 passed. No appeal was carried therefrom.

¶23

Be that as it may, we are concerned with the impugned order before us. The impugned order dated February 5, 2016 allows the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the authorities on the ground that the writ petitioner received a notice of hearing subsequent to the date of hearing and, therefore, was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

¶24

In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal.

¶25

APO/100/2018 along with all connected applications stand disposed of.

¶26

However, the authorities are at liberty to proceed against the delinquent in accordance with law.

¶27

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)

¶28

(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)

¶29

s.pal

The Union of India through the Comm. of Customs(Preventive) v. Raj Kumar Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India through the Comm. of Customs(Preventive) v. Raj Kumar Mondal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Sarbojit Mukherjee

Subhasish Dasgupta Vs State of West Bengal

Avishek Banik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Raj Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Union of India

Kothari Global Ltd. Vs Special Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr.

Bimal Singh Kothari Vs Special Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr.