A. K. Ganesan Vs Principal Commissioner and Ex Officio (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on case of the person from whom gold was seized without independently considering the case of the petitioner is not justifiable. Accordingly, court directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.
Facts- Originally an order in original was passed against the petitioner imposing penalty u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of original authority, by confirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the original authority as well as by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
The revisional authority under the impugned order has once again confirmed the order of the original authority and the appellate authority by holding that the petitioner is liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion- Held that independently, the first respondent ought to have considered the grounds raised by the petitioner for challenging the orders of the original authority as well as the appellate authority. But as seen from the impugned order of the first respondent, the first respondent has not independently considered the case of the petitioner who was imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. But has given his findings only based on the case of Ms.Vairavasundaram Jayanthi who has been imposed penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 gives power to the customs department to impose penalty for improper importation of goods. Whereas, Section 114AA of the customs Act is a penalty provision which empowers the customs department to impose penalty for use of false and incorrect materials. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity will have to be granted to the petitioner to go before the first respondent and redress his grievance with regard to the contentions raised in this writ petition and the first respondent has to consider the case of the petitioner independently, after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
