Delhi High Court
M/S Udit Textiles vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 23 November, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgement reserved on: 01.10.2015
% Judgement delivered on: 23.11.2015
+ W.P.(C) 5544/2015
M/S UDIT TEXTILES ..... Petitioner
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(EXPORT) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Mr. Harish Kohli, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr Kamal Nijhawan & Ms Shreya Sinha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This writ petition was heard alongwith WP(C) 3598/2015, titled : M/s.
Santosh Handloom Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Ors.
A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent in the said writ
petition. The arguments in the said writ petition [i.e. WP(C) 3598/2015] and
in the captioned petition were common on the issue of law raised therein; the
dates and events not being in dispute.
2. It is a common ground that the facts obtaining in the instant case are
largely similar to those which are found in Santosh Handloom case [i.e.
WP(C) 3598/2015]. For the sake of greater clarity, I only set out, the crucial
facts obtaining in the present case, which are as follows :-
2.1 The goods, in the instant case, were detained by the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence (in short DRI) vide panchnama dated 26.07.2014.
2.2 The respondent issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 23.01.2015
under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act), which
was served on the Customs House Clearing Agent (in short, the CHA) of the
petitioner, on the very same date.
2.3 The CHA, purportedly, made an endorsement on the SCN on the very
same date (i.e. 23.01.2015), stating that no personal hearing was required in
the matter.
2.4 Based on the above, the respondent passed an order on the very same
date i.e. 23.01.2015, whereby in exercise of powers under the proviso to
Section 110(2), they extended the period for issuance of the SCN (which
was received by the CHA, on 23.01.2015) by a period of six (6) months.
2.5 Admittedly, the SCN dated 23.01.2015, was received by the petitioner
via post, only on 03.02.2015.
2.6 Similarly, the order dated 23.01.2015, extending the period for
issuance of the SCN was despatched via post on 31.01.2015. Therefore, if
the date of service of the SCN dated 23.01.2015, on the petitioner is taken
into account then, clearly the service was effected beyond the period
prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
2.7 The respondent, as in Santosh Handloom case [i.e. WP(C)
3598/2015] have argued that service on the CHA, was service, in law, on the
petitioner. This submission of the respondent has been discussed in detail in
the Santosh Handloom case [i.e. WP(C) 3598/2015], and thereupon, been
rejected.
3. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, both the SCN dated
23.01.2015 and the adjudication order dated 23.01.2015, will suffer the same
fate. The aforementioned SCN and the adjudication order are quashed.
Resultantly, the respondent will have to return the goods seized, to the
petitioner. However, as indicated in the Santosh Handloom case [i.e.
WP(C) 3598/2015], the proceedings qua confiscation can continue. [See
para 17 of the judgment of even date, passed in the case of Santosh
Handloom {i.e. WP(C) 3598/2015}]
4. The captioned petition is disposed of, accordingly.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
yg
