High Court: Extension of Time Period for Show Cause Notice under Customs Act, 1962

The High Court held that the Commissioner's extension of the time period for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 did not require a separate notice, as long as reasons were recorded in writing and the concerned party was informed. The Court found that the amendment to the provision eliminated the need for a show cause notice before extending the period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the CESTAT's order and allowed the appeals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CESTAT erred in holding that goods had to be released since no notice preceded the extension of detention under Proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Legal Context:
The respondents imported rough diamonds from Hong Kong and filed Bills of Entry for clearance through ICD, Jaipur. The Directorate of Revenue Investigation (DRI) alleged overvaluation and seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, suspecting they were liable for confiscation under Section 111. No show cause notices were issued within six months from the date of detention, prompting the DRI to request an extension under Proviso to Section 110(2).

2. Respondents' Argument:
The respondents argued before CESTAT that they were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the extension of the time limit for issuing a show cause notice. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh, which held that the Commissioner could not extend the period without hearing the affected parties. They also cited Harbans Lal Vs. Collector of Customs and other similar judgments supporting the need for a hearing before extending the period.

3. Revenue's Argument:
The revenue supported the extension granted by the Commissioner, arguing that the amendment to Section 110(2) by the Finance Act, 2018, changed the requirement from "sufficient cause being shown" to "reasons to be recorded in writing." They contended that the amendment did away with the need for a show cause notice before extending the time period and that the Commissioner had appropriately extended the time after considering the circumstances.

4. CESTAT's Decision:
The CESTAT compared the pre-amended and amended provisions of Section 110(2) and relied on various judgments, including S.R.K. Metal & Industries, which held that an order extending the period for issuing a show cause notice without giving an opportunity to the affected party is illegal. The CESTAT concluded that the right to notice and hearing before extending the time period remained unchanged even after the amendment.

5. High Court's Analysis:
The High Court analyzed the pre-amended and amended provisions of Section 110(2) and the relevant case law, including The Asstt. Collector of Customs and Ors. v. Charan Das Malhotra and J.K. Bardolia Mills v Dy. Collector and Ors. The court noted that the amended provision requires the Commissioner to record reasons in writing and inform the person from whom the goods were seized before the expiry of the specified period. The court held that the amendment brought about a significant change, eliminating the need for a show cause notice before extending the period.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the CESTAT's order was not sustainable. The court held that the amended provision of Section 110(2) does not require a separate notice before extending the period for issuing a show cause notice, provided the Commissioner records reasons in writing and informs the concerned party. The impugned order of CESTAT was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---