JUDGMENT (Prayer: WP.No.242 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue aWrit of Certiorari, to call for the records leading to passing of the Detention Notice, vide F.No.S.MISC.24/2016-GR6 dated 28.12.2018 by the 2nd respondent quash the same. WP.No.251 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue aWrit of Certiorari, to call for the records leading to Order in Original No.44421/2016 dated 30.12.2015, by the 1st Respondent, quash the same.) Common Order: 1. Heard Mr.P.Giridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents in both writ petitions. 2. The prayer in W.P.No.251 of 2019 is for a quash of order dated 30.12.2015. The impugned order is stated not to have been served upon the petitioner at all. In fact, it was only when a demand of penalty was raised upon the petitioner that he came to be aware that such an order had been passed. 3. The petitioner had, admittedly, received a show cause notice for which the date is unavailable. In response, the petitioner filed a reply on 29.07.2015. Thereafter the petitioner has intimated the Assistant Commmissioner of Customs (Imports) on 06.10.2015 that it had changed its address from 'Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd., 8B 'Capitale', 554 and 555, Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-18' to'M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd., Seethakathi Business Centre, Ground Floor, No: 684-690, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai-06'. 4. Mr.Pramod objects to the above intimation stating that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) was not the proper authority to have been informed of the change of address. 5. No doubt, the petitioner has not intimated the assessing authority of the change in address; however, there is no proof available on record for the service of the impugned order of assessment upon the petitioner what is produced is an extract from the Speed Post Register, maintained by the Department of Posts, Government of India, that only establishes dispatch of the impugned order, not receipt. 6. As no acknowledgement from the petitioner is available, the stand of the petitioner to the effect that order dated 30.12.2015 has not been served upon it is liable to be accepted. 7. 6. As no acknowledgement from the petitioner is available, the stand of the petitioner to the effect that order dated 30.12.2015 has not been served upon it is liable to be accepted. 7. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal challenging the impugned order within a period of thirty days from today and such appeal, if filed within the time stipulated as aforesaid, shall be accepted without reference to limitation. The petitioner shall remit the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned order of penalty, simultaneous with institution of the appeal. WP.No.251 of 2019 is disposed as above. 8. Coming to the prayer in WP.No.242 of 2019, the petitioner prays for a quash of detention notice dated 28.12.2018. Calling for the recovery of the penalty of a sum of Rs.1 crore 10 lakhs by detaining and selling any goods belonging to the petitioner pan India, in satisfaction of the penalty imposed. 9. In light of order passed in W.P.No.251 of 2019, the detention notice stands quashed. The petitioner was directed, pending writ petition, to remit 50% of the penalty by way of bank guarantee. Such deposit, if made, shall be returned to the petitioner upon the respondent officer ensuring that the appeal has been instituted with statutory pre-deposit. W.P.No.242 of 2019 is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.