HAZARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by Park Knives Pvt. Ltd. and Vipon Gupta, inter alia, praying for an order that - (a) Writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to forthwith allow your petitioners to re-export the goods arrived in Vessel M. V. Lhotse on Voyage No. 405 dated 28th July, 1991 in respect whereof Bill of Entry No. 1549 dated 31-7-1991 has been filed by the petitioners; (b) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Prohibition be issued prohibiting and restraining the respondents, their servants, agents and/or assignees from refusing to allow the petitioner to re-export the goods arrived at Calcutta in Vessel M. V. Lhotse being Voyage No. 405 dated 28th July, 1991 in respect whereof Bill of Entry No. 1549 dated 31-7-1991 has been filed by the petitioners and detaining the same and/or initiating any proceedings in connection therewith and/or concerning the same against the petitioners, and for other reliefs. ( 2 ) THE petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 2 Vipon Gupta is a shareholder and director of the petitioner No. 1 Park Knives Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner on 27-11-1990 booked an order with a foreign seller for the supply of materials as specifically mentioned therein with exact sizes and specifications of the goods required. Pursuant to the said order the foreign seller despatched the goods in Vessel "pacific Arrow" which was subsequently transhipped to Vessel "m. V. Lhotse" and the cargo arrived at the port of Calcutta on 28th July, 1991. The foreign seller submitted two proforma invoices from Tokyo on 13th December, 1990 and in the said invoices the goods were described as "veneer Peeling Knives Blanks". The regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel refused to accept the said two proforma invoices on the ground that the description of item of import was not specific. Thereafter on 14th December, 1990 the foreign seller submitted revised proforma invoices describing the goods as Cladded Steel Blanks rolled for manufacturing of industrial cutters for peeling and a certificate to that effect. On 31st July, 1991 the petitioners filed the bill of entry with the Calcutta Customs Authorities for the clearance of the goods. The petitioners described the goods in the bill of entry according to the specification mentioned in the said proforma invoices. On 31st July, 1991 the petitioners filed the bill of entry with the Calcutta Customs Authorities for the clearance of the goods. The petitioners described the goods in the bill of entry according to the specification mentioned in the said proforma invoices. Thereafter the petitioners received a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act issued by the respondent No. 3, Appraiser, Special Investigation Branch, Collector of Customs, Calcutta, asking the petitioners to appear before him on 8-8-1991 with all correspondence and documents relating to the import. Thereafter the petitioners appeared before the Customs Authorities and the petitioners' statements were recorded. On 6-9-1991 the Customs Authorities in presence of Group Appraiser and Dock Appraiser checked the goods and it transpired that the goods which had arrived at the port of Calcutta in the name of the petitioners do not tally with the goods ordered for by the petitioners but is of a bigger size. Petitioners' further case is that the petitioners were shocked and surprised to notice the deviation between the goods ordered and the goods supplied and complained to the foreign seller by a telex dated 14th September, 1991. The foreign seller in their turn admitted their mistake and offered to take back the goods. The further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not at fault and they have acted bonafide and it was the mistake of the foreign seller so far as the size is concerned. The foreign seller having admitted their mistake and having agreed to take back the goods, the petitioners approached the customs authorities and requested permission from them to re-export the goods as the petitioners could not obtain refund from the foreign seller unless the goods which have come contrary to the specification and sizes as mentioned in the order are returned back to them. The customs authorities did not allow the petitioners to re-export the goods. On 1-10-1991 the present writ application was moved. On 3-10-4991 the customs authorities served a show cause notice on the petitioners and the hearing of the show cause notice was ultimately fixed on 3-1-1992. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed on affidavit-in-opposition through Samir Ranjan Dutt, Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Investigation Branch, Calcutta. The respondent's case is that the declared Unit price (CIF) in respect of the goods in Japanese Yen 16,900 per piece. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed on affidavit-in-opposition through Samir Ranjan Dutt, Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Investigation Branch, Calcutta. The respondent's case is that the declared Unit price (CIF) in respect of the goods in Japanese Yen 16,900 per piece. The declared size of the goods were 2722 x 169 x 14 mm, which on examination by the Department in presence of the petitioner was found to be 2850 x 181 x 17. 1 mm. Though there was a difference in the size, the declared weight tallied with the weight of the goods. It was ascertained by the Department that the value per piece would be Japanese Yen 38,500 and the differential duty comes to Rs. 4,74,661. 92p. on the entire consignment. ( 4 ) THE Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas Chandra Sen by order dated 10-10-1991 directed the petitioner to give reply to the show cause notice and was further pleased to order that the matter would be heard in accordance with law as early as possible. It was further ordered that pending the disposal of the show cause notice the respondents were directed to keep the goods in a bonded warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act. This Court passed an order after hearing the learned Advocates on 18-12-1991 directing the Additional Collector of Customs to give personal hearing to the petitioners on 3-1-1992 and to pass necessary orders and the Additional Collector of Customs was further directed not to give effect to the order and/or adjudication made by the Collector on 3-1-1992 or on subsequent dates without the leave of the Court and the adjudication order is to be sent to the Court in a sealed cover on or before 7-1-1992 when the matter will come up for further hearing. Thereafter the adjudication was completed and a sealed envelop containing the adjudication order was sent to the Court. The Additional Collector of Customs passed an order on 6-1-1992. Thereafter, Mr. Vipon Gupta filed an affidavit on 28-1-1992. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that from the adjudication order it is clear that the subject goods have been grossly undervalued to evade the customs duty and the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, Mr. Vipon Gupta filed an affidavit on 28-1-1992. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that from the adjudication order it is clear that the subject goods have been grossly undervalued to evade the customs duty and the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Various other facts and evidence were produced at the time of hearing and it was held that the petitioner had mala fide mens rea which made him to attempt to defraud the Revenue Department and it was further held that the importers and its Directors are liable to penal action under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the following order was passed :-"in view of the foregoing I order confiscation of the subject consignment under Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,0 (30 (Rupees five lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation. If the goods are redeemed the duty should be charged at the proper rate on the determined assessable value as discussed earlier. The above should be exercised within one month from the date of this order. I further impose a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs only) on M/s. Park Knives (P) Ltd. , which should be paid to the Custom House Treasury forthwith. " ( 6 ) MR. Bhaskar Sen, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the show cause notice was served without any basis and the writ petitioners are entitled to re-export the goods which were wrongly shipped and there was no evidence of mala fide on the part of the writ petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on material to show that the writ petitioners had deliberately brought into India goods which are different from what was mentioned by them in the Bill of Entry. The Customs authorities have disclosed no material which is required to be disputed by the writ petitioners. The Customs Authorities have acted on assumption and conjecture and the conduct of the Customs authorities in refusing the prayer for re-export and issuance of show cause notice upon the writ petitioners is without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) MR. The Customs authorities have disclosed no material which is required to be disputed by the writ petitioners. The Customs Authorities have acted on assumption and conjecture and the conduct of the Customs authorities in refusing the prayer for re-export and issuance of show cause notice upon the writ petitioners is without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) MR. Sen relied on a decision and submitted that the goods which were imported or even attempted to be imported should be allowed to be re-exported as there was no intention to import the goods and also to rectify the mistake of the foreign seller. It is further submitted that in the absence of mala fide, there is no jurisdiction for confiscation of the goods and/or imposition of penalty. ( 8 ) MR. Sen also referred to a decision reported in 1980 (6) E. L. T. 144 (Bombay) and submitted that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the order of adjudication should be quashed. It is further submitted by Mr. Sen that the adjudicating officer had incorporated some of the contentions of the Customs Authority regarding a brochure of M/s. Toyo Knife Co. Ltd. titled "knifes" and the visit of Mr. S. Ohno, Manager of M/s. Toyo Knife Co, Japan, in Calcutta. The said facts were incorporated in the show cause notice and, as such, the writ petitioner could not deal with the same. It is further submitted that the adjudication order should be quashed as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the order is void in the eye of law, and there cannot be any appeal before the Tribunal against a void order. As such, Mr. Sen submitted, the writ petitioner had no other alternative remedy but to proceed with the instant writ petition. ( 9 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that from the adjudication order it appears that the petitioner No. 2 went to the Chamber of the adjudicating officer and his conduct was a shameless conduct and various other facts came to the notice of the adjudicating officer, which go to show that the goods which were imported, were imported with mala fide motive, and to defraud the Customs Authority. He also submitted that it is not a case of mistake as stated by the writ petitioner. The fact remains, Mr. He also submitted that it is not a case of mistake as stated by the writ petitioner. The fact remains, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that huge amount of the customs duty were sought to be evaded and since the same was detected by the Department, the story of mistake etc. has been concocted. Since the adjudication order has been passed after hearing the parties, the only course left is to direct the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act before the appropriate forum. ( 10 ) I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and since an adjudication order has already been passed and both the parties were heard and they were properly represented and several facts were brought to the adjudicating officer, which are not the subject-matter of the writ petition and are outside the scope of the writ petition and the finding of facts, the same cannot be agitated in this proceeding. This Court will not enter into the disputed questions of fact and allow the parties to bring evidence and to decide a writ petition on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. On the contrary, since an adjudication order was passed, the course left to the writ petitioner is to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum or authority. Since the matter is pending before this Court, it is ordered that the writ petitioners will be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority and all points of law and facts will be adjudicated before the appellate forum and the appellate forum will decide the matter in accordance with law. ( 11 ) I make it clear that this Court has not entered into any controversy between the parties and neither adjudicated and/or decided the disputes between the parties. The entire matter will be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. ( 12 ) IF the petitioners before this Court pray for condonation of delay for filing the appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 10 weeks from this date, the same would be allowed by the appellate authority and the appeal would be heard on merits by the appellate authority and the petitioners will be at liberty to produce such evidence before the appellate authority as may be permissible and allowable under the law. ( 13 ) THE writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. ( 14 ) MR. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for stay of operation of this order. Since the petitioner is given liberty to make an application for condonation of delay within a period of 10 weeks, there will be a stay of operation of the order for ten weeks from date excepting the portion of the order by which the petitioner is given liberty to file an application for condonation of delay.