Customs Act: Pre-notice consultation upheld as valid, allowing objections.

The Court upheld the communication from the Dy. Commissioner of Customs as fulfilling the requirement of pre-notice consultation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It clarified that the communication served as a valid consultation, allowing the petitioner to raise objections before the proper officer if recovery proceedings are initiated. The Court disposed of the petition, finding no further orders necessary based on the Department's clarification.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to a communication from the Dy. Commissioner of Customs raising a demand.
2. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Customs Act in relation to recovery of duties.
3. Requirement of pre-notice consultation before issuing a recovery notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a communication from the Dy. Commissioner of Customs dated 30.10.2018, raising a demand of &8377; 71,87,475. The petitioner contended that the demand was made without granting a hearing and before the dues were crystallized. The Department argued that the communication fulfilled the requirement of the second proviso to Clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that no further order was passed by the Authorities before seeking recovery.

2. The Court delved into the relevant provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, which deals with the recovery of duties not levied or short-levied. It highlighted that the proper officer must serve a notice on the person chargeable with the duty, requiring them to show cause before recovery. The second proviso to this clause mandates pre-notice consultation with the person chargeable with duty or interest. The Department argued that the impugned communication was in the nature of pre-notice consultation, and if the petitioner does not comply, the recovery procedure under Section 28 would be followed.

3. The Court accepted the Department's argument that the impugned communication served as a pre-notice consultation. It clarified that if the petitioner does not accept the Authority's request and if recovery is sought, the procedure under Section 28 would be initiated. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the proper office if such a situation arises. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, stating that no further order was necessary based on the clarification provided by the Department.

---