2024 (1) TMI 646 - HC - Customs

SCN under Section 124 Customs Act set aside due to 12-year delay violating Article 14 constitutional principles

M/s. Maersk Kine India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

M/s. Maersk Kine India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - TMI Issues involved:The judgment deals with the issue of the validity of notices issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to consignments imported/shipped to Chennai, which were issued almost 12 years after the import, raising concerns of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Issue 1: Reasonableness of Delay in Issuing NoticesThe petitioner argues that the notices issued 12 years after the import are arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the principle of reasonableness in state actions. The absence of a specific limitation under Section 124 of the Act does not justify such prolonged delay, as all state actions must pass the test of reasonableness.Issue 2: Pre-shipment Certificate RequirementThe respondent contends that a pre-shipment certificate is mandatory for importing metal scrap, as per specific provisions in the Handbook of Procedures and relevant circulars. The certification agency must confirm the absence of hazardous materials in the consignment, emphasizing the importance of complying with these requirements.Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Lack of LimitationCiting Supreme Court judgments, the respondent argues that in the absence of an express limitation period under Section 124 of the Act, proceedings cannot be restricted by time constraints. The court refrains from delving into the merits of the case but highlights the necessity of reasonable timelines for state actions.Judicial Precedents and ReasonablenessThe judgment references various legal precedents emphasizing the need for state actions to be taken within a reasonable period, even in the absence of specific statutory limitations. Instances where delays in adjudication were deemed unreasonable and illegal are cited to support the argument that prolonged delays can vitiate proceedings and disturb the rights of citizens.ConclusionBased on the reasoning from legal precedents and the principle of reasonableness, the court sets aside the impugned proceedings under Section 124 of the Act, initiated 12 years after the import, due to unreasonable delay. The judgment disposes of the writ petitions, with no costs imposed, and closes the connected miscellaneous proceedings.