Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The writ petition is directed against an order dated May 23, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, although the impugned order is appealable and that, his client will prefer an appeal against a portion of such order, the remaining portion of the order is without jurisdiction. In support of the contention that, a portion of the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners were issued a show cause notice dated March 21, 2016. The show cause notice was on the basis of an intercept made by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata in respect of four passengers arriving at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport from Hong Kong via Bangkok on October 3, 2015. The petitioners were intercepted with high value electronic items. The show cause was heard. Such show cause was disposed of by the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Authorities have issued few directions, the first direction is on confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The next direction is the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that, so far as these two directions are concerned, the petitioners will prefer an appeal therefrom as the same is appealable. Referring to the imposition of penalty by invoking the provisions of Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, he submits that, Authorities did not have any basis for the purpose of either invoking such provisions or calculating the penalty as imposed in the impugned order. He submits that, Sections 112(a) and 112(b) cannot be applied simultaneously as they govern separate fields. This, according to him, is the first infirmity in the penalty imposed. Secondly, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) would be on the goods liable to confiscation. So far as the three petitioners before me are concerned, one of them has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 125 lacs. So far as the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) is concerned, there is no goods available with the Customs Authority to impose such quantum against any of the petitioners. Such imposition is arbitrary.
(3.) The respondent is represented.;