By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs/Respondent No. 3 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to release the imported goods of the petitioner.

Petitioner had imported smart. It is stated that the imported smart plugs are used for extension socket purposes and since the same does not generate any wi-fi or bluetooth signal, petitioner claims that no import licence from the Wireless Procurement Cell, Department of Information and Technology, Government of India was required. Petitioner also got the product tested to certify that the technical features of the product did not fall under licensing requirement.

The apprising officers raised objection regarding requirement of import licence with respect to the imported products. Thereafter office of respondent No.3 scheduled a personal hearing through video conferencing which was attended by the authorised representative of the petitioner. The authorised representative told respondent No.3 that all the three declarations were already provided to the apprising officers and therefore requested that the imported goods be released forthwith. However, no recording of personal hearing was communicated to the petitioner.

Thereafter respondent No.3 passed the impunged order in original rejecting the unit price of the goods as declared by the petitioner and directed that the same be redetermined. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to pay the resultant differential duty along with applicable interest.

Aggrieved by the order being in violation of principles of Natural Justice, the present Writ is filed.

Court held that ,No notice in writing under section 124(a) of the Customs Act was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order in original which not only confiscated the goods but also imposed penalty on the petitioner. From a reading of the impugned order in original, it does not appear that the procedure laid down for rejection of declared value and redetermination of value was followed.

It is a settled proposition that when a law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the prescribed manner and proceeding in any other manner is necessarily forbidden.

The impugned order in original is clearly unsustainable in law being in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions as alluded to hereinabove.

Impugned Order set aside and direct that the proper officer may proceed with the matter afresh, if he is so inclined, by following the mandate of section 124 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.( WP(L) No. 3933 of 2020 25 -3 2021 )