2015 (9) TMI 291 - HC - Customs

Court emphasizes timely resolution, directs respondents to provide information on pending cases, stresses transparency and accountability.

Lanvin Synthetics Private Limited & anr Versus The Union of India & anr

The court found in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication and the duty of authorities to resolve old cases promptly. ... Non-compliance of conditional advance licence – Imposition of Duty – Delay in adjudication – Petitioner-1 was issued conditional advance licence and compliance was to be made with condition that petitioners would export polythene/viscose blended fabric – As there was collusion between 2nd petitioner and third party, incorrect/manipulated/false information regarding quantities/weight/composition of exported goods was provided to show compliance of terms and conditions of licence and demand of duty was confirmed – Held that:- Admittedly petitioners addressed several letters requesting authorities to proceed with matter or to drop proceedings and retain money already deposited in lieu of demanded duty – 18 years have lapsed since notice was issued and revenue cannot merely issue show cause notices and thereafter not take steps to adjudicate matter in accordance with law – Revenue directed to furnish the details of pending cases. Issues:1. Delayed adjudication of a show cause notice2. Retention of money without adjudication3. Request for return of deposited sum with interestAnalysis:1. The petitioners raised concerns regarding a show cause notice dated 13th March 1997, alleging collusion and incorrect information provided for an advance license. The notice demanded a substantial sum, but there was no adjudication for nearly 18 years. The petition sought a declaration that the notice cannot be adjudicated due to the passage of time and requested the return of the deposited amount.2. The court noted the lack of adjudication and the wrongful retention of the deposited money. It emphasized the duty of authorities to conduct inquiries when old cases remain unresolved. The court highlighted the importance of timely adjudication to protect public interest and revenue. It directed the respondents to provide information on any initiated inquiries or investigations at a higher level regarding pending cases for prompt resolution.3. The court granted two weeks for the respondents to submit an affidavit detailing actions taken to address pending cases and ensure their lawful conclusion. The court expressed its intention to pass final orders after the specified period, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in dealing with such matters to uphold the rule of law and protect public funds.