Court rules in favor of petitioners challenging show cause notice & corrigendum on Cod Liver Oil import.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case challenging the legality of a show cause notice and corrigendum related to the import of Cod Liver Oil. Despite a significant delay of ten years in completing adjudication proceedings and imposing penalties, the court found it unreasonable and unjust to proceed with penalties after such a prolonged period. The petitioners were granted relief, and the court did not permit the completion of adjudication proceedings due to the excessive delay and lack of justification provided by the respondents.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to legality of show cause notice and corrigendum regarding import of Cod Liver Oil; Delay in completion of adjudication proceedings; Imposition of penalty after a lapse of ten years.

Challenge to legality of show cause notice and corrigendum: The petitioners challenged the show cause notice and corrigendum regarding the import of Cod Liver Oil, which was covered by Appendix 9 of Import Policy, 1984. The learned Single Judge observed that the import was not covered by canalising or ban notifications. The petitioners were allowed to clear the consignment by an interim order, and despite directions, the adjudication proceedings were not completed by the respondents for about ten years. As the goods were already cleared, the show cause notice seeking confiscation no longer had relevance. The court did not permit the completion of adjudication proceedings due to the unreasonable delay and the unjust nature of imposing penalties after such a long time.

Delay in completion of adjudication proceedings: The respondents failed to complete the adjudication proceedings for ten years without providing any explanation for the delay. The court found it unjust to allow the proceedings to continue after such a significant lapse of time, especially for the purpose of imposing penalties. The petitioners were granted relief as a result of the unreasonable delay and lack of justification for the prolonged inaction by the respondents.

Imposition of penalty after a lapse of ten years: The court refused to permit the completion of adjudication proceedings for the purpose of determining any penalty amount, considering the lengthy delay of ten years and the lack of justification provided by the respondents for the delay. It was deemed unfair and unjust to impose penalties after such a prolonged period, leading to the petitioners being entitled to relief. The petition succeeded, and the rule was made absolute without any order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

---