Valid email service of customs notice upheld, with no relief for seized goods or basis for review.

Service of a show cause notice at the email address furnished by the noticee was treated as valid under the Customs Act, and the review court found no basis to reopen the earlier order on alleged invalid electronic service. The Government email policy did not override the statute, and the material disputing receipt was found unreliable. The petitioner also could not seek release of seized goods because the notice was issued within the prescribed six-month period, so no interim relief was available on that ground. The review application was further affected by delay, and the reasons advanced for condonation were not accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petition disclosed any ground to reopen the earlier order on the alleged invalid service of the show cause notice by email; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in respect of the seized goods in view of the statutory timeline for issuance of the notice.

Issue (i): whether the review petition disclosed any ground to reopen the earlier order on the alleged invalid service of the show cause notice by email

Analysis: The earlier order had accepted service of the show cause notice at the email address furnished by the petitioner, and the challenge in review did not dislodge that finding. The Court found that the email mode of service under the Customs Act was valid, the Government email policy did not override the statute, and the petitioner had not made out any basis to discredit the electronic communication merely because it was sent through a non-government email service. The material placed to deny receipt was also found unreliable.

Conclusion: The challenge to service of notice by email was rejected, and no ground for review was made out on merits.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in respect of the seized goods in view of the statutory timeline for issuance of the notice

Analysis: The earlier order had recorded that the goods were seized on 21.01.2023 and the show cause notice was served on 04.07.2023, i.e. within the six-month period prescribed for issuance of notice. In that view, the petitioner could not claim release of the seized gold bars at that stage. The review petition was also filed after substantial delay, and the reasons offered for condonation were not accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to release of the seized goods, and the review petition was barred by delay as well as lacking merit.

Final Conclusion: The earlier dismissal of the writ petition was left undisturbed, and the review application failed both on delay and on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of a show cause notice through the email address furnished by the noticee is valid where it is authorised by the governing statute, and a review will not be entertained absent a clear error or other sufficient ground, especially where the statutory period for issuing notice has been complied with.

---