2022-TIOL-1097-HC-DEL-CUS
Neeraj Aneja Vs Pr.Addl. Director General DRI
Cus - Smuggling of gold - Petitioner, a government official is arrayed as noticee no.12 in the said SCN dated 26.09.2019 - Only allegation against the petitioner is that he did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 29.03.2016 - Petitioner submits that the responses received to the RTI applications dated 23.07.2021 and 05.08.2021 demonstrate that during the period in issue, the said SOP was inoperable; that the pendency of the adjudication of the impugned SCN is impeding the progress of the petitioner in service; that the petitioner is not being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner.
Held: Matter requires adjudication - Expedite the adjudicatory process vis-à-vis the writ petitioner, given the fact that the charges against him fall in a narrow compass - Representation made by the writ petitioner vis-à-vis his promotion, the same will be dealt with expeditiously, though, not later than three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 18]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1096-HC-MUM-CUS
Insight Diagnostic Oncological And Research Institute Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Import of medical equipment in 1989, 1990 - Notification 64/88-CUS - Though, in the show cause notice dated 16th July 1998, petitioners were not called upon to show cause as to why petitioners should not be directed to pay customs duty on the medical equipment amounting to Rs.35,73,223/-, respondent No. 3 in the order also directed petitioners to pay customs duty of Rs.35,73,223/- - Notwithstanding this position, petitioners paid the customs duty of Rs.35,73,223/- and the penalty of Rs.50,000/- - Petitioners did not bother to pay the redemption fine on the medical equipment, and in effect abandoned those equipment, therefore, petitioners did not redeem the confiscated goods - 12 years after the order dated 4th June 2003 was passed by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur, by a letter dated 20th March 2015 called upon and directed petitioners to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest of Rs.91,17,397/- for the period from 9th October 1996 to 23rd February 2012 - On 7th September 2018, petitioner received a letter dated 29th August 2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, reiterating their earlier letters and threatening to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 142 of the Act - Petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition.
Held: One indisputable fact that comes to the fore is that Section 28AB of the Act or Notification No. 47/96-CUS (NT) were not in existence on the date of importation of the medical equipment - Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (1) would not apply to the cases where duty became payable before the date on which Finance (No. 2) Bill 1996 received assent of President - In this case, the goods were imported in 1989-90 and, therefore, duty would have become payable in 1989-1990, which is certainly much before receiving the assent of President to the Finance (No. 2) Bill 1996, by which Section 28AB was inserted in the Act - Moreover, Section 28AB will be applicable only where any duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded by reasons of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by a person, who is liable to pay the duty as determined under sub-Section (2) of Section 28 - Sub-section (2) of Section 28 provides that notice under sub-Section (1) should have been first issued - When notice under Section 28 itself has not been issued in this case, the question of determination of any duty payable under sub-Section (2) of Section 28 does not arise and consequently, any interest payable under Section 28AB also would not arise: High Court [para 10, 12, 14]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1095-HC-MUM-CUS
Rachana Garments Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Petitioners are challenging a show cause notice dated 27/06/1997 issued by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the show cause notice, not having been adjudicated by Respondent No. 2 and/or his predecessors for a period of 24 years, although Petitioners have filed replies and attended personal hearing, has become stale and has to be quashed and set aside.
Held: Such delayed adjudication wholly attributable to the revenue would be in contravention of procedural fairness and thus violative of the principles of natural justice - The action, which is unfair, and in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained - In the absence of any period of limitation it is incumbent upon every authority to exercise the power of adjudication post issuance of show cause notice within reasonable period - After 25 years, Petitioners, having approached this Court impugning the show cause notice, cannot be made to suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the proceedings which, because of the inordinate delay in its conclusion, is most likely to work out prejudice to them - When the revenue keeps the show cause notice in call book, then it should inform the parties about the same as it would advance the cause of transparency in revenue administration - Had Petitioners not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, the show cause notice would have continued to gather dust - Not only the impugned show cause notice should be quashed, Petitioners are also certainly entitled to refund of amount of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit up to the date of refund, within a period of eight weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 18, 21, 24, 26, 27]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1094-HC-MUM-CUS
S J Enterprises Vs UoI
Cus - Reliefs are applied in the context of the respondents adopting coercive measures and encashing the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioners on the date of service of the Order in Original dated 30.06.2020 upon the petitioners and before the petitioners could avail of the opportunity to appeal the order dated 30.06.2020.
Held : In the undisputed facts from the record, the remedy of appeal can hardly be regarded as efficacious to seek redress against the coercive action of encashment of the Bank Guarantee - Admittedly, the Order in Original dated 30.06.2020 was issued on 06.07.2020 but served on the petitioner only on 15.07.2020 - Respondent no.3, however, on the same day, on 15.07.2020, addressed a communication to the Senior Manager of the HDFC Bank Ltd. to encash Bank Guarantees dated 12.06.2019 furnished by the petitioner and as a result, based on the communication dated 15.07.2020, the HDFC Bank (respondent no.4) transferred the amounts of Rs.35,25,160/- and Rs.10,58,000/- with the respondents to cover the demands in the Order in Original dated 30.06.2020 - Circular 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 provides that no coercive measures for recovery of the balance amount that is in excess of the pre-deposit amount should be taken during the pendency of the appeal, and recovery action, if any, can be initiated only after the disposal of the appeal in favour of the Department - The CBEC circular and the instructions bind the Customs Authorities - Impugned letter/order dated 15.07.2020 is quashed and respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's Bank Guarantee and maintain status quo ante till the disposal of an appeal instituted by the petitioners before the appellate authority - Commissioner of Customs (respondent no.2) is directed to circulate this judgment and order to all Assistant Commissioners or adjudicating Officers so that in future, there are no similar instances of breach of CBEC instructions or the disobedience of judicial orders - If the Commissioner finds any further cases of violation, we expect the Commissioner to take necessary action against the errant officers - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10, 13, 22, 23]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
