2022-TIOL-1074-HC-MUM-CUS
UoI Vs Bobsons Corporation
Cus - Import of "Secondary Defective High Speed Drills/Rods" - Revenue alleged gross misdeclaration in the description, quantity and value in order to evade payment of appropriate duty of customs and accordingly issued show cause notices demanding total customs duty of Rs.2,13,72,356/- whereas petitioner admitted additional duty of Rs.72,64,064/- and filed an application for settlement before the Settlement Commission - Application that was filed on 21st September 2010 came to be disposed by an order dated 25th February 2011 and aggrieved with this order, the UOI is before the High Court - Counsel for Revenue submitted that the disclosure made by Respondent No. 1 was neither full nor true and in such circumstances, Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Settlement Commission ought to have summarily rejected the application for settlement. Held : It is settled law that this court is not the court of appeal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of Settlement Commission - Bench is not inclined to entertain the petition, hence is dismissed: High Court [para 8, 10, 11] - Petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1073-HC-DEL-CUS
Leo Cargo Services Vs CC
Cus - Allegation is diversion of warehoused goods into the domestic market without payment of customs duty - In the appeal filed against the order of CESTAT, appellant has raised the following questions of law viz. whether Tribunal misdirected itself in law by holding that the timeline prescribed under Regulation 20(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 is directory - During the personal hearing, it was informed by the Appellants that the Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry Report after the expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the CBLR Regulations - Commissioner Customs passed the Order-in-Original revoking the Customs Broker licence, forfeiting the entire security deposit and imposing penalty - Vide order dated 01.10.2019, the CESTAT, while discussing both the concerns of limitation and the merits of the Appellant's challenge, reached the conclusion that the time limit as prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 need not be so strictly adhered and further held that the time limit needs to be considered in view of the principles of fairness and equity - CESTAT, accordingly, by its order dated 01.10.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original, which has led to the filing of this appeal.
Held: The issue of timelines under Regulation 17, CBLR 2018, which is pari materia to Regulation 20, CBLR 2013 are no longer res integra - In the matter titled Overseas Air Cargo Services = 2016-TIOL-1531-HC-DEL-CUS , the show cause notice was issued after the lapse of ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report and the Inquiry Report was submitted more than three years after the show cause notice was issued - The Bench had held that the order revoking the licence of the Appellant is unsustainable in law - A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sh. Harjeet Singh Johar = 2018-TIOL-167-HC-DEL-CUS , while following the earlier decisions passed by this Court has held that the time limits have to be understood as strict time schedules and construed accordingly - It can be seen that the timelines as prescribed under various Regulations in CBLR 2018, have been consistently held by the Courts as mandatory in nature - Each timeline is sacrosanct, and the idea of prescribing a time limit by statute becomes redundant if not adhered to - Therefore, it is not just the overall timeline of 270 days (as set forth in the Circular No. 09/2010 dated 08.04.2010) that needs to be followed, but also each and every timeline as prescribed in the CBLR 2018 - Timelines cannot be overlooked by Revenue by citing reasons on merits - Revenue is bound to follow the settled law and statutory provisions, including their timelines - Once the limitation is prescribed clearly therein, it cannot be stated that because of other issues, this mandatory requirement can be ignored - Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the CESTAT - Consequently, the proceedings involving revocation of the appellant's custom broker license, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of penalty, will also stand set aside: High Court [para 13, 13.3, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 15]
- Appeal allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1072-HC-MUM-CUS
Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Private Warehouse licence - Petitioner impugns order dated 10 th January 2005 by which their licence granted u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been cancelled and they have been ordered to pay appropriate customs and central excise duties on the capital goods and raw material procured duty free, semi-finished and finished goods lying in stock on the date of cancellation of the said licence.
Held : If Respondent No. 2 was relying on any seizure panchanama or any other material, the same should have been mentioned in the show cause notice issued to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to petitioner to respond but which has not been done - Further, Respondent No. 2 for issuing show cause notice has relied upon six show cause notices and an offence booked by DRI but none of these had attained finality but are pending at various stages - At the time show cause notice in the case at hand was issued there was every possibility that the show cause notices and the complaint on which Respondent No. 2 had relied upon to issue show cause notice could have been discharged or withdrawn against petitioner, therefore, issuance of show cause notice itself was premature - impugned order dated 10th January 2005 is quashed and set aside - Any amount deposited by petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this court shall be returned to petitioner, together with interest - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12, 14]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1071-HC-MUM-CUS
Spie Capag SA Vs CC
Cus - Order passed by respondent No. 2 only amounts to an attempt to overreach and circumvent the orders passed by this court on 12th August 2008 and 10th December 2012 - Not having raised any of the points now being taken before despite having ample opportunities, respondents cannot after a belated period of almost 30 years, raise the requisition upon petitioner to meet alleged post import requirements - This has been done by respondent No. 2 only to prevent petitioner from insisting on those missing 19 bank guarantees or originals of 4 bank guarantees, which were kept valid by petitioner - Though there is no time limit prescribed, that would not mean that the department could commence adjudication proceedings after 20 or 25 or 30 years by calling upon parties to comply with alleged obligations which they had - This would also amount to violating the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, long delay will deprive a party from marshalling the documents or witnesses as there is always a possibility of documents or the witnesses disappearing or ceasing to exist after such a long gap - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 17 to 19]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
