IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14292 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. SAFE EXPORTS PVT. LTD., IIIRD LEVEL, MATHEWSONS TRADE CENTRE, KALOOR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MOHAMMED ELIAS. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SHB(, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI - 9. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (SHB) CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI -9. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOCHI - 9. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.M.SHEREEF, SC,CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT BY THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).14292 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner imported furniture and the consignment was seized on the ground that the same is undervalued, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner sought for a provisional release of the same. The same was granted as evidenced by Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.2,96,200/- and a bond for Rs.4,85,242/-. Later, finding that the value fixed by the Department far exceeded the actual value, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 stating that it is open to the Customs Department to confiscate the goods and proceed to sell the same, because the penalty proposed to be levied was highly excessive. That was not accepted by the 1st respondents, who intimated the petitioner vide Ext.P4 that abandonment of the goods may not accepted and the petitioner is liable to pay duty with interest vide Ext.P5 dated 18.12.2006. 2. The petitioner then submitted his objections to the show cause notice issued by the Customs Authorities. The enquiry is still pending. Ext.P9 show W.P.(C).14292 of 2009 :: 2 :: cause notice was thereafter issued on 1.10.2007 under Section 111 of the Customs Act proposing to impose a penalty on the petitioner alleging that there is gross undervaluation of the goods as such. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same and the adjudication proceedings are still pending. In the meanwhile, the goods continue to be stored in a go down of the Customs Department. The petitioner has also a grievance that he has been denied permission to inspect the goods. 3. I heard Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Sri.Nellimoottil submits that since the goods have been imported from Malaysia, it would be necessary to call for the relevant materials from the country from where the goods have been imported. It seems, this will take some time. Previous consignments have been imported and they were also subjected to proceedings under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The proceedings are now pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The W.P.(C).14292 of 2009 :: 3 :: adjudication proceedings shall be completed, it is submitted, within 45 days. Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no objection to the petitioner inspecting the goods. The same shall be done in a joint inspection by the representative of the petitioner and an authorised officer of the Customs Department. The petitioner has also a case that he has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the person from whom a statement has been taken and which it is alleged, forms the basis of the show cause notice. The person, who has given a statement may not always have the status of a witness in judicial proceedings. If the person, who faces the proceedings under Section 111 of the Customs Act, doubts the veracity of the statement, he can seek to cross- examine the said person. If there are adequate reasons for the request for cross-examining not being granted, then such reasons will have to be delineated in the order of the adjudicating authority. The correctness of the reasons could obviously be challenged in an appeal. W.P.(C).14292 of 2009 :: 4 :: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the proceedings initiated under Ext.P5 shall be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The adjudicating authority shall deal with the petitioner's request for cross-examining any person, whose statement has been procured and shown in Ext.P9 show cause notice. In the meanwhile, if a request is made for inspection of the goods, the same shall be permitted to be done in the presence of an authorised officer. If the adjudicating authority while considering the request for cross-examining the author of any statement that is relied on in the show cause finds that such person is not a normal resident in India, then obviously it will be open to the adjudicating authority to take further time to complete the adjudication proceedings. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge