Delayed Customs Duty Recovery Not Barred Where No Statutory Limitation Applies

Delayed recovery of customs duty was not quashed merely because the department initiated proceedings belatedly under the Customs Act, 1962. Once the duty had become due and payable, the absence of a statutory limitation did not create immunity from recovery, and delay alone did not render the recovery without jurisdiction. Authorities cited by the petitioner on assessment, reassessment, penalty, or interest under different statutory settings were held distinguishable. The explanation that the file had been mixed up was not accepted as a legal bar to recovery, and the recovery proceedings were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of customs duty could be quashed merely because there was a long delay in initiating recovery proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Once the duty had become due and payable, the absence of any statutory limitation did not create immunity from recovery merely because the department acted belatedly. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner concerned assessment, reassessment, penalty, or interest under different statutory settings and were therefore distinguishable. A delay in recovery, by itself, could not render the recovery without jurisdiction, and the explanation that the file had been mixed up was not accepted as a sufficient legal bar to recovery.

Conclusion: The challenge to recovery on the ground of delay failed, and the recovery proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory limitation, delayed recovery of a duly payable customs debt is not barred merely by lapse of time, and delay alone does not extinguish the authority's power to recover government dues.

---