2020 (1) TMI 72 - HC - Customs

Court Orders Compliance with Document Directions, Sets Timelines for Adjudication

J. Sheikh Parith Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Additional Director General

The court ordered the respondents to comply with directions for document furnishing within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of timely ... Return of seized documents or not relied upon (No RUD) - Non furnishing of Reply to the Show Cause Notice - According to the petitioner they are material and relevant for preparing their reply to the said show cause notice. - misdeclaration of value of imported goods - time limitation for filing of reply of SCN - HELD THAT:- No writ petition can be entertained to quash a hearing of notice as it is not an order. At the same time, it should be remembered that the 2nd respondent as an investigative agency cannot retain the seized documents. Once its completes investigation and issuing of Show Cause Notice, it should return the same or give back photo copy to the person to who it belonged. As per Circular No. 394/15/88-Cus A.S dated 13.6.1996 and Circular No. 207/09/2006-CX, the 2nd respondent was required to return the documents not relied upon/considered useful from any angle to the parties concerned - The 2nd respondent however failed to do so. Despite order dated 22.12.2014 in W.P.No. 899 of 2013, barring few documents, not all the documents directed to be furnished have been supplied. Since the 2nd respondent has not fully complied with the said order, I am of the view, the 2nd respondent should be directed to strictly comply with the said order in letter and spirit within a period of 30 days of receipt of this notice - The petitioner and other notices shall thereafter file their reply to the Show Cause Notice No.F.No.VIII Dated 22.12.2011 within a period of 90 days i.e latest by 31st March, 2020. Under no circumstances any extension of time for filing the reply shall be entertained as the adjudication of the show cause proceeding has been considerably delayed by about seven years due to pendency of the present writ petition. All the defences raised in the present writ petition including the submission regarding abatement of show cause proceedings in the light of section 28 (9) Of the Customs Act, 1962 is left open to be decided by the 1st respondent - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to hearing notice in Show Cause Notice, Compliance with court directions for document furnishing, Failure to return documents by investigative agency, Delay in adjudication of show cause notice, Request for declaration of show cause proceeding abatement, Correspondences to thwart adjudication, Non-compliance with court order for document furnishing, Timeframe for document collection and reply filing, Adjudication timeline, Defenses raised in the petition.Analysis:1. Challenge to hearing notice in Show Cause Notice: The petitioner challenged the hearing notice issued by the Appraiser of Customs fixing a personal hearing in the Show Cause Notice. The notice dated 22.12.2011 raised allegations against the petitioner for mis-declaration in the value of imported goods using Import-Export Codes of other entities. The petitioner sought documents for preparing a reply, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging the notice.2. Compliance with court directions for document furnishing: The court directed the respondents to furnish specific documents as detailed in a tabulated form. The petitioner requested various documents for property adjudication of the show cause notice. The court ordered the respondents to comply with the directions and furnish the required documents within a specified timeframe.3. Failure to return documents by investigative agency: Despite court orders and circulars requiring the investigative agency to return documents not relied upon, the agency failed to do so. The petitioner emphasized the importance of these documents for preparing a reply to the show cause notice and sought strict compliance with the court's order for document furnishing.4. Delay in adjudication of show cause notice: The adjudication of the show cause notice was significantly delayed due to various factors, including the pendency of the writ petition. The court set strict timelines for document collection, reply filing, and adjudication to expedite the process that had been delayed for about seven years.5. Request for declaration of show cause proceeding abatement: The petitioner argued that amendments to the Customs Act deemed the show cause notice proceedings as abated in the absence of adjudication. The court left the decision on this matter open for the 1st respondent to decide while emphasizing the need for timely adjudication.6. Correspondences to thwart adjudication: The petitioner engaged in various correspondences with the respondents, including requests for documents and refusals to appear for personal hearings. The court took note of these correspondences and emphasized the importance of cooperation in the adjudication proceedings.7. Timeframe for document collection and reply filing: The court directed the respondents to furnish the remaining documents within a specific timeframe. The petitioner and other parties were required to file their replies to the show cause notice within 90 days, with no extensions granted due to the prolonged delay in adjudication.8. Adjudication timeline: The court set a strict timeline for the adjudication of the show cause notice, requiring the 1st respondent to proceed with the adjudication within six months from the date of the court's order. This timeline aimed to expedite the resolution of the long-pending matter.9. Defenses raised in the petition: The court left all defenses raised in the writ petition, including arguments regarding the abatement of show cause proceedings, open to be decided by the 1st respondent during the adjudication process. The petition was disposed of based on the observations made by the court, with no costs imposed on either party.