Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) In this writ petition under challenge is an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import of General) New Customs House, New Delhi dated 29th January, 2007 under which penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs. The main allegation against the petitioner relates to mis-declaration and suppression of the value of the goods imported. Drawing my attention to various passages of the impugned order and the show cause notice, on the basis of which the order was passed, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the goods were imported at the port at Calcutta and the charge against the petitioner is over preparation of false invoices under the cover of which the goods were imported at the port.
(2.) Thereafter such goods were despatched to New Delhi. The goods in question are computer parts. An investigation was conducted in several offices of the importer, including the office of Messers Vintron Industries Ltd. and seizure of certain articles was made from the office of this company in Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The charge against this company again is under invoicing of the imported materials. These facts have not been specifically pleaded in the petition, but I have been taken through the annexures to the writ petition by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and these facts do not appear to be in dispute. The petitioner's connection with this company appears to be in his holding the post of a director, which he disputes. In the writ petition he has pleaded that since he did not attend any meeting of the company, he had ceased to be a director of the company by operation of law.
(3.) But these facts are not of much relevance at this stage of the present proceeding. Mr. Tilak Basu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection on two counts as regards maintainability of this writ petition. His case is that this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction as none of the effective respondents have their office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Argument was primarily advanced on the first point of objection that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition, and it is this question I propose to examine in this judgement.;