Customs limitation and res judicata principles upheld for a second notice based on separate bills of entry and clearance date.

Extended limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was held to run from the date the goods were cleared under the relevant bill of entry, and not from the date of knowledge of alleged misdeclaration or undervaluation. The second show cause notice was also found not to be barred by res judicata because it related to different bills of entry from those covered by the earlier notice. The adjudication and appellate findings on misdeclaration, undervaluation, unauthorised diversion of duty-free goods, confiscability and penalty disclosed no legal or factual error warranting writ interference, so the challenge failed and the departmental action was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second show cause notice was barred by limitation or by res judicata. (ii) Whether the adjudication orders and the appellate order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the second show cause notice was barred by limitation or by res judicata.

Analysis: The extended limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to run from the relevant date, namely the date on which the goods were cleared under the relevant bill of entry. The date of knowledge of misdeclaration or undervaluation was held to be irrelevant. Since the second notice related to different bills of entry from those covered by the first notice, the principle of res judicata was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The second show cause notice was held to be within limitation and not barred by res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication orders and the appellate order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The findings of misdeclaration, undervaluation, unauthorised diversion of duty-free goods, confiscability and penalty had been examined at length by the adjudicating authority and affirmed in appeal. No legal or factual error was shown to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: No interference with the adjudication orders or the appellate order was called for.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the customs adjudication and appellate orders failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the departmental action sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs duty demands based on misdeclaration or undervaluation, limitation under Section 28 runs from the date of clearance of the goods under the relevant bill of entry, and separate bills of entry constitute separate cause-based assessments for the purpose of a subsequent notice.

---