Reasonable-time requirement in customs adjudication can invalidate delayed orders, while a stale refund claim remains barred.

Even where the customs drawback scheme prescribed no express limitation period, the authority had to complete adjudication within a reasonable time, and an unexplained delay of more than eleven years in passing the final order rendered the show cause notice and Order-in-Original vulnerable to quashing. The earlier payment made in 2007 was, however, held not refundable because the refund claim itself was time-barred, and the petitioner could not rely on limitation to defeat the demand while pursuing a stale refund claim. The article states that inordinate delay can invalidate quasi-judicial action, but a separate refund claim remains subject to limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed under the customs drawback provisions could be quashed for having been concluded after an unexplained delay of more than eleven years. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount already paid in 2007.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed under the customs drawback provisions could be quashed for having been concluded after an unexplained delay of more than eleven years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not prescribe a period of limitation for passing the order, but the authority was still required to act within a reasonable period. The notice was issued in 2009, the reply and personal hearing were completed in the same year, yet the final order was passed only in 2020. The delay was treated as unreasonable, and the earlier decision applying the principle of exercise of jurisdiction within a reasonable time was followed.

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and the Order-in-Original were liable to be quashed for inordinate and unreasonable delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount already paid in 2007.

Analysis: Even on the assumption that the payment had been made under protest, the refund claim was held to be time-barred. The petitioner could not resist the demand on limitation grounds and simultaneously seek refund of the earlier payment when that claim was also stale.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund of the amount already paid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on the challenge to the delayed adjudication, but the claim for refund of the earlier payment was rejected as barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where no specific limitation period is prescribed, an administrative or quasi-judicial authority must complete the proceeding and pass the final order within a reasonable period; an inordinate unexplained delay renders the action vulnerable to being set aside.

---