TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition Dismissed as Premature; Petitioner Given 30 Days to Respond to Customs Import Show Cause Notice.</h1> <h3>LUKER ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II (IMPORT)</h3> The HC dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice regarding the import of goods and the benefit of Notification No. 91 of 2017-Customs. The ... Validity of SCN issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act read with Section 124 of the Customs Act in contravention of the order of the Appellate Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The decision rendered by the Court in M/S. N.C. ALEXENDER VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI II COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI [2022 (6) TMI 723 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] relates to the jurisdiction of DRI, to issue show cause notice as a proper officer, under the Customs Act, 1962. In this case, the show cause notice has been issued to the Commissioner of Customs II. The Court in N.C. Alexender has also noted that the apparent defect point out earlier by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been cured by the amendment to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in the Finance Act, 2022. Therefore, the decision of the Court in N.C. Alexender is irrelevant. The petitioner should therefore file a reply to the impugned show cause notice. Therefore, there is no merits in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature. It is therefore liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is therefore given liberty to file a reply to the impugned show cause notice that has been issued to the petitioner. The present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 6-12-2022 regarding the import of goods and the benefit of Notification No. 91 of 2017-Customs.Import of Goods and Notification No. 91 of 2017-Customs:The petitioner imported goods and filed multiple Bill of Entries on different dates. The petitioner failed to avail the benefit of Notification No. 91 of 2017-Customs. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeals against the assessment of seven out of fifteen Bill of Entries by way of remand. The Appellate Commissioner directed the lower authority to re-assess the Bills of Entry to examine the eligibility of the benefit of the Notification. The petitioner argued that the respondents should have filed further appeal before CESTAT if aggrieved by the Appellate Commissioner's order, instead of issuing a show cause notice under the Customs Act. The petitioner sought relief through the writ petition.Jurisdiction and Show Cause Notice:The Court considered the arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The Court found that a previous decision related to this issue was irrelevant due to subsequent amendments to the Customs Act. The Court determined that the petitioner should reply to the show cause notice and deemed the writ petition premature. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply within 30 days. The respondent was instructed to dispose of the show cause notice along with the Appellate Commissioner's remand order and pass orders in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
