Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- limitation act (36 of 1963)section 5: [n.k.patil,j] order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years however, no statement made as to their source of information held, explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of court. petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. delay not condoned. - therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as annexure-s to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 gp defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under section 48 of the customs act, 1962 (hereinafter referred.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

order1. in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th april, 1986 passed by the assistant collector of customs (acc), customs house, mangalore in no. imno. 121 of 1985 produced as annexure-t. 2. the petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 gp defective steel coils to him. 3. the petitioner imported 113 gp defective steel coils. all the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at mangalore port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at mangalore due to labour strike at the mangalore port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at cochin port. the assistant collector of customs, mangalore, waited for about 9 months. even.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. He will also pay the admitted duty;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372086',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
			'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Customs',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372086',
		(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs Union of India and anr - Citation 372086 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372086',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 48, 111 and 112',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 13158/86',
		'appellant' => 'Naresh Chand Verma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Naresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963)Section 5: [N.K.Patil,J]  Order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property  Appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years Explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years  However, no statement made as to their source of information  Held, Explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of Court. Petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. Delay not condoned.  -  Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. Pleader has passed the following order :I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions :1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N.R. Kantawala and ;Udaya Holla, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Shivashankar Bhat, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-08-05',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.A. Swami, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. </p><p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. </p><p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. </p><p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. </p><p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. </p><p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. </p><p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : </p><p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' </p><p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : </p><p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : </p><p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; </p><p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; </p><p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; </p><p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and </p><p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' </p><p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. </p><p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. </p><p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : </p><p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. </p><p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. </p><p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. </p><p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : </p><p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. </p><p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. </p><p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. </p><p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. </p><p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Union of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Customs',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372086',
	(int) 1 => 'naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372086/naresh-chand-verma-vs-union-india-anr'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (ACC), Customs House, Mangalore in No. IMNO. 121 of 1985 produced as Annexure-T. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The petitioner has also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to release 10 GP defective steel coils to him. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. The petitioner imported 113 GP defective steel coils. All the coils were scheduled to be unloaded at Mangalore Port, but only 10 coils were unloaded on 17-6-1985 at Mangalore due to labour strike at the Mangalore Port, and the remaining 103 coils were unloaded at Cochin Port. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, waited for about 9 months. Even then, the goods were not cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-1986 produced as Annexure-S to the petitioner to show cause as to why the 10 GP defective steel coils in question should not be confiscated under Section 48 of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the failure on the part of the petitioner to clear them. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner sought for time till 10th April, 1986 and also sought for personal hearing on the ground that he was not able to secure necessary documents to prove that the importing of the coils in question was in accordance with law, therefore, he was entitled to have the goods released on payment of necessary customs duty. It is the case of the Assistant Collector of Customs that pursuant to the aforesaid reply sent by the petitioner a communication dated 25-3-1986 was addressed to him fixing the case for hearing on 10-4-1986, but neither the petitioner appeared on that day nor any representation was made on his behalf. Therefore, he had no alternative, but to proceed with the case and confiscate the goods in question. Accordingly, by the impugned order in question, he confiscated the goods. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Several contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant Collector of Customs has no power under Section 48 of the Act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in the event of delay of removing, he is liable to pay the demurrage charges. Therefore, under these circumstances, the coils in question cannot be confiscated. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine all the contentions, raised by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing nor an enquiry has been held. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>6. It is the case of the petitioner that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was not delivered to him and he did not receive the same. Therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for personal hearing. Hence, he could not appear before him on 10-4-1986. The burden is upon the respondents to prove that the notice dated 25-3-1986 was served on the petitioner well in time. No records are placed before me by the respondent to show that the communication dated 25-3-1986 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due or under a certificate of posting to the proper address of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the version of the petitioner that he had not received the communication dated 25-3-1986; therefore, he could not come to know the date fixed for hearing on 10-4-1986. It has to be noticed that the petitioner immediately replied to the show cause notice and sought for fixing a date for hearing. Therefore, he could not have remained absent, if he had received the communication dated 25-3-1986. There is one more circumstance to support this conclusion. The petitioner is pursuing legal remedy in respect of remaining 103 GP defective coils before the High Court of Kerala. He has also obtained an order for release of those coils on certain conditions, on 7th January, 1986 itself, in CMP. 1479/86 filed in O.P. No. 30 of 1986. Pursuant to the said order, he has also obtained delivery of the goods. Thus, the petitioner having approached the High Court of Kerala and obtained release of 103 GP defective coils in all probability he would not have remained absent on 10-4-1986 if only he had served with the communication dated 25-3-1986. Under these circumstances, it follows that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted with notice to him, Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be quashed without going into other contentions and only on the ground that it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>7. The next question for consideration is, whether the Assistant Collector of Customs Mangalore should be directed to release 10 GP defective steel coils in question. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice that the fate of the proceeding relating to these 10 GP defective steel coils cannot be different from the one relating to 103 GP defective coils delivered at Cochin Port, because, they form part of one consignment. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, by the order dated 9-12-1985 produced as Annexure-K has held as follows : ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'In view of the foregoing, I hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a> read with section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. However, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The redemption fine is kept low in view of the fact that the party has already incurred a heavy demurrage. The party shall clear the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per the value fixed in this order in respect of the whole quantity. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the <a>Customs Act, 1962</a>.' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in OP No. 30/86 before the High Court of Kerala. In that case, an application No. CMP 1479/86 is filed by the petitioner for delivery of the aforesaid 103 GP defective steel coils. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing learned Central Govt. Pleader has passed the following order : ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'I am satisfied that the petitioner may be allowed to take delivery of the goods subject to the following conditions : ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>1. The petitioner will pay all the penalties levied in Ext. P.11 order; ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>2. He will also pay the admitted duty; ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. He will deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value specified in Ext. P. 1 order; ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4. He will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs the remaining 65% of the difference in duty; and ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>5. He will furnish security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to produce the goods or value thereof as may be assessed by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>If any one of the conditions is not complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the order relating to the release of the goods will stand vacated.' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. In this case also it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the admitted duty and he will also deposit before the Assistant Collector of Customs 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the assessment of duty on the value as determined by the Collector of Customs. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs for the remaining 65% of the difference in duty. It is also further submitted that the petitioner will also produce the goods or value thereof as may be determined by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. When 103 GP defective coils have already been released on the aforesaid conditions and the petitioner is also ready to abide by those conditions in respect of 10 coils in question, I do not see any justification to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner for directing the release of the goods and on complying with the conditions that may be imposed. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms : ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>1. The order dated 28-4-1986 produced as Annexure-T passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore is hereby quashed. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>2. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>3. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. The Assistant Collector of Customs; Customs House, Mangalore, is directed to release 10 GP defective coils in question to the petitioner, provided the petitioner satisfies the following conditions : ',
	(int) 23 => '<p> i) Pays into the office of the 2nd respondent the admitted customs duty. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>ii) Deposits in the office of the 2nd respondent 35% of the difference between the admitted duty and the duty assessed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs or the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, as the case may be. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>iii) Furnishes bank guarantee for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>iv) Further furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, Customs House for the CIF value of the goods and the penalty if any to be levied to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mangalore, in the same terms as he has furnished to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, for the value of the goods in question, as mentioned in the C.I.F. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions within the period fixed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Mangalore, it is open to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. <p>',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 29
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109