1990 PLP 1506 (CLC)

Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents (absent). Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1989. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The Petitioner imported 910 great gross of Polyester Buttons and declared the price @ US $ 1.50 per great gross. The goods re detained by the Customs Authorities and a show‑cause notice dated 7‑6 -1980 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Collector of Customs Special Task and A.I.B. stating that the normal price should be @ $ 10.80 per great gross if they were white in colour but since the imported buttons were dyed, 7% loading was further to be made. In response to the notice the petitioner produced evidence to show the rate at $ 3.55 per great gross. The Assistant Collector of customs, passed the order enhancing unit price @ $ 3.55 per great gross against U.S.$ 1.50 per great gross declared by the Petitioner and allowed the release of goods against warning. Respondent No.2 after examining the record of the case found that no penal action was taken for misdeclaration of value. He took the view that as the petitioner had committed fraud by deliberate underinvoicing the goods it was not proper to let it off with a warning. Acting suo motu under section 195 .of the Customs Act he issued a notice under sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act read with section 3 (1) of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950 and clauses 9 and 14 of section 156 of the Customs Act to show cause why action should not be taken for deliberate act of importing goods valued at Rs.90,786 without cover of Vailid licence and for gross underinvoicing. The petitioner filed its reply denying that any false declaration was made. It was also denied that it had knowledge and deliberately declared the value which was false. Respondent No.2 by order dated 23‑9‑1981 held that the goods were grossly underinvoiced, the transaction was fraudulent and the goods should not have been released on simple warning. He therefore imposed a personal penalty of Rs.57,

057. It is pertinent to note that the Assistant Collector while passing order released the goods on 28‑6‑1980 and observed as follows: "Mr. Javed Ahmed appeared for hearing and produced documents showing price of buttons polyster wavy size 24" @ $ 3.35 per great gross. In view of the voluntary admission of the party and the evidence produced the goods are, therefore, ordered to be assessed cc $ 3.55 per great gross in this case as the evidence appears to be genuine. As the party has voluntarily agreed to this price the release of the goods is allowed with warning." This admission by the petitioner's representative had impressed respondent No.2 for holding that there was a misdeclaration to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision application against order dated 23‑9‑1980 which was dismissed by order dated 30‑10‑1985. Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that order was passed by respondent No.l without affording full opportunity and that it had taken unreasonably long time to deliver the order which vitiates it. The learned counsel contended that a short hearing was held but no arguments were addressed and thereafter the hearing was adjourned and after 'more than four years the order was passed and communicated to the petitioner. Without entering into the merits of the case we may observe that there has been a delay for an unreasonably long time. Even if the petitioner was properly heard and the order was not pronounced for a period of four years it was sufficient to vitiate the validity of the order. We therefore, declare that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We remand the case to the Authority authorised under law to hear the revision application to decide it according to law after notice to the petitioner. M.R.A./M‑1009/K Order accordingly.