Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondent, dated 18.09.2014. By the said order, the respondent namely, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaports) confirmed the demand of Customs duty to the tune of Rs.72,75,758/- in respect of the goods imported against four advance licences under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act (Act), ordering confiscation of the same with option to redeem on the payment of fine of Rs.25,00,000/-, apart from equal penalty under Section 114A of the Act. The demand of duty, penalty and imposition of fine was a consequence upon the denial of benefit of Customs Notification No.30/97 (Cus), dated 01.04.1997 and No.51/2001-Cus, dated 27.04.2000, for the entire import of 162.278 Mts of Stainless Steel Coils/Sheets, which were imported by the petitioner duty free availing the four Advance Licences. 2. Pursuant to investigation conducted by DRI, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 22.03.2003, calling upon them to explain why the exports of locally procured Stainless Steel Utensils made by the petitioner under four advance licences should not be held as inadmissible towards the export obligation under the said licences, consequently, proposing to deny the benefit of the exemption notification and why duty should not be demanded and penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner did not submit reply to the show cause notice, but filed W.P.No.12859 of 2003 and this Court granted an order of interim stay on 24.04.2003. The writ petition was pending for nearly eight years and this Court by order dated 17.03.2011, dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable and the petitioner was granted eight weeks time to submit his reply to the show cause notice. Though such direction was issued on 17.03.2011, no further action was taken presumably, because the respondent department filed W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013, for modification of the order dated 17.03.2011 made in W.P.No.12859 of 2003. It was stated that when this Court disposed the Writ Petition, a direction was issued to the third respondent, the DRI to pass final orders, when the authority who has to pass the final orders is the second respondent and therefore the Department sought for modification. However, it is not known as to why the application for modification was filed only in the year 2013, when the Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.03.2011. 3. However, it is not known as to why the application for modification was filed only in the year 2013, when the Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.03.2011. 3. Be that as it may, this Court by order dated 02.06.2014, allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and modified the order directing the second respondent, the respondent herein to pass orders. Thereafter, the respondent by communication dated 10.06.2014, directed the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 20.06.2014 with all relevant documents. It appears that the petitioner did not appear. Subsequently, by another intimation dated 08.07.2014, the petitioner was directed to appear for personal hearing on 21.07.2014 or on 25.07.2014. On receipt of the said communication i.e., on the hearing date i.e., 21.07.2014, the counsel for the petitioner sought for adjournment on the ground that they are awaiting the certified copy of the order in W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013 in W.P.No.12859 of 2003, dated 02.06.2014. The request made by the petitioner was considered and the personal hearing was adjourned to 11.08.2014, by intimation dated 04.08.2014, to the petitioner as well as his counsel. Once again on the hearing date, a letter was given by the counsel stating that the order passed in the Writ Petition was modified by this Court on 02.06.2014 and they have applied for the certified copy of the order on 04.06.2014 with the Registry of this Court and they are awaiting the receipt of the certified copy and in the mean time, the respondent having issued the notice for personal hearing on 11.08.2014, the petitioner counsel stated that they are not fully conversant with the said order and his counsel who is leading the case is not in station due to pre-fixed commitment and a Junior Advocate appeared and requested to adjourn the matter, but the request was not entertained. Further, it was alleged that the appraiser attached to the office of the respondent intimated the Junior Advocate of the petitioner's counsel that the proceedings before the respondent is just an eyewash, as the respondent has already made up his mind to pass an order against the petitioner. Further, it was alleged that the appraiser attached to the office of the respondent also informed that a draft of the order against the petitioner is also ready. Further, it was alleged that the appraiser attached to the office of the respondent also informed that a draft of the order against the petitioner is also ready. Therefore, the counsel stated that necessary opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner before passing an order and if the same is not done, it is a deliberate violation of the order of the Court. The communication sent by the counsel dated 11.08.2014 by speed post, was received by the respondent on 12.08.2014. Thereafter, another communication was sent to the petitioner as well as his counsel on 13.08.2014, intimating that the date of personal hearing as 22.08.2014, enclosing a copy of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013. Thereupon, another counsel by letter dated 22.08.2014, stated that he is filing change of vakalat in the case and the petitioner has approached him on the previous day i.e., on 21.08.2014, at around 7.30 p.m., and handed over the papers and therefore, he requires some time to peruse the records and that he intends to engage a Senior counsel to represent the case and requested for reposting the case to 25.08.2014. Once again, the same contention that the certified copy of the modification order in W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013 was made ready only on 12.08.2014 and the order grants six weeks time to the respondent to pass orders and a period of six weeks expires only on 25.09.2004. Further, it was stated that the petitioner was given eight weeks time to give reply to the show cause notice and there is time upto 07.10.2013 and therefore, it was stated that the case should be adjourned to 25.08.2014. The copy of the counsel's letter dated 22.08.2014, was marked to the appraiser of the Customs Commissioner Adjudication Unit, who has acknowledged the same on 22.08.2014 affixing the seal. Thereafter, on 15.09.2014, a letter was sent requesting for communicating the date of personal hearing. The respondent passed the impugned order-in-original demanding customs duty, penalty and imposing fine and the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this Writ Petition. 4. Thereafter, on 15.09.2014, a letter was sent requesting for communicating the date of personal hearing. The respondent passed the impugned order-in-original demanding customs duty, penalty and imposing fine and the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and nothing would have happened, if the matter was adjourned as per the request made by the petitioner and the certified copy of the order modifying the earlier direction was not received by the petitioner and therefore, the respondent ought not to have passed final order, that too without even rejecting the petitioner's request for adjournment. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent by referring to the factual details, which have set out in the preceding paragraphs submitted that several opportunities of personal hearing were granted and the petitioner without availing the same has been resorting to dilatory tactics and he was avoiding in participating in the adjudication proceedings for reasons best known and the contention that there was no adequate opportunity is without merit and liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the respondent has passed a well reasoned and speaking order clearly bringing to light the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner to escape from payment of appropriate customs duty. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no bonafide in the claim made by the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition came up for admission before this Court on 30.10.2014 and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent was directed to get instructions from the respondent and the matter was directed to be posted on 05.11.2014. Subsequently, when the matter came up for hearing, there was no instruction given to the learned counsel for the respondent and at his request, the matter was posted on 14.11.2014. When the matter was taken up on 14.11.2014, the learned Standing counsel informed the Court that despite intimations, no instructions have been given. Therefore, this Court passed an order on 14.11.2014, observed that inspite of the matter having been adjourned twice and the learned Standing counsel has informed the concerned officials, it is not known as to why the department has failed to furnish instructions to their own standing counsel. Therefore, this Court passed an order on 14.11.2014, observed that inspite of the matter having been adjourned twice and the learned Standing counsel has informed the concerned officials, it is not known as to why the department has failed to furnish instructions to their own standing counsel. Therefore, before passing any order against the concerned officer one more opportunity was granted and the case was directed to be posted on 19.11.2014, and on the said date, the Assistant Commissioner filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent. 7. After hearing the counsels on either side and taking note of all the factual details mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it is evidently clear that the plea raised by the petitioner lacks bonafide and the petitioner was dragging on the matter inspite of the fact that the Writ Petition filed by him in 2003, challenging the show cause notice was dismissed after eight years in 2011 and thereafter, when intimation of personal hearing was granted citing one reason or other, that certified copy of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013, dated 02.06.2014, was not furnished to the petitioner. 8. It is to be noted that the show cause notice, which was impugned in the Writ Petition was issued by the DRI and answerable to the respondent, who has to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner was aware of the fact and in fact contested the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue the show cause notice. The show cause notice remained stayed from 2003 till 2011. On 17.03.2011, the Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable. While directing reply to be submitted by the petitioner, a further direction was issued stating that as and when the same is received, the third respondent therein is directed to pass final orders. The third respondent in the said Writ Petition was DRI as per the show cause notice, the adjudication has to be done by the respondent herein, who was the second respondent in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner does not deny the fact that the show cause notice is answerable to the respondent herein. In fact, it is never the case of the petitioner that DRI will adjudicate the show cause notice rather the petitioner in the earlier writ petition contended that DRI did not have jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. 9. The petitioner does not deny the fact that the show cause notice is answerable to the respondent herein. In fact, it is never the case of the petitioner that DRI will adjudicate the show cause notice rather the petitioner in the earlier writ petition contended that DRI did not have jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. 9. It is rather surprising that the respondent in the earlier writ petition appeared to have not noted this error in the order immediately and they filed a petition for modification of the order only in 2013 and an order was passed on 02.06.2014, modifying the earlier order. The certified copy of the order dated 02.06.2014 has been received by the respondent Department on 08.07.2014. However, the petitioner had been contending that they received it only on 12.08.2014. Citing the non-receipt of the order, three adjournments were sought for. In one such letter addressed by the counsel on 11.08.2014, allegation was made stating that the appraiser attached to the office of the respondent stated that the personal hearing is an eyewash and already draft order has been prepared against the petitioner. After the receipt of the certified copy of the order, once again another counsel makes a request to the authority to extend time by stating that as per the order there is a sufficient time for the respondent to pass the order. 10. The chain of events, the nature of representation made by the petitioner from time to time, the reason assigned on account of change of counsel and the stand taken by the new counsel makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was not interested in participating in the adjudication proceedings. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice, but it is a clear case, where the petitioner wilfully refused to utilise the opportunity granted by the respondent and the petitioner purposely dragged on the matter citing one reason or other. The order passed in W.P.M.P.No.240 of 2013, having been passed in the presence of the counsel for the Writ Petition, it is deemed that they have knowledge of the order and the order was a slight modification to the order dated 17.03.2011, altering the array of the respondent alone. The writ petitioner did not raise any objection to the order being modified at the instance of the Department. The writ petitioner did not raise any objection to the order being modified at the instance of the Department. The time limit fixed by the Court while modifying the order is only a outer time limit and there is no hard and fast rule that the authority should wait till the expiry of the time and passed an order on the last date. 11. In the light of all the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on account of the conduct of the petitioner. The settled law being principles of natural justice is not a straightjacket formula, but would depend upon the facts of the each case. The facts in the instant case does not warrant any indulgence to the petitioner, as the conduct of the petitioner is far from appreciable the manner in which, they proceeded with the matter while they were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the conduct of the petitioner was wilful and they had absolutely no intention of participating in the personal hearing. 12. Having come to such conclusion, it has to be seen as to what is the remedy left open to the petitioner, the impugned order is an order-in-original passed by the respondent as against which, there is an statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner by filing an appeal before the CESTAT. 13. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily avail the alternative remedy provided under the Act as against the impugned order and no grounds have made out to set aside the impugned order on the ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and it is open to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Tribunal to be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.