Delhi High Court
M/S Balaji Handloom 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) 3742/2015
M/S BALAJI HANDLOOM ..... Petitioner
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(IMPORT) & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Priyadarshi Manish, Mrs Anjali J. Manish, Mr Rahul Ranjan &
Mr Piyus Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr Kamal Nijhawan & Ms Shreya Sinha, Advocates for R- 1 & 2.
Mr Satish Aggarwala & Mr Amish Aggarwala, Advocates for R-3.
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 respondents 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 panchnamas dated 26.07.2014 and
31.07.2014.
2.2 The respondents 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 respondents 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, at 1437 hours.
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, at 1904 hours.
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 respondents, 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 respondents 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 respondents 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
