Extension of time under administrative proviso: recorded reasons and departmental communication suffice despite disputed signatures or missing ID.

The text addresses validity of an administrative extension of the time for issuing a show-cause notice under the Customs Act, focusing on the proviso requiring reasons in writing and prior communication to the affected person. Key legal points: recording the Commissioner's approval and reasons on the official file satisfies the proviso; a subordinate communication issuing that decision is effective where the department affirmatively avers its origin; contested handwriting, alleged forgery and procurement of signatures raise factual disputes unsuitable for resolution on affidavit in writ proceedings; absence of a document identification number does not ipso facto void an otherwise affirmed departmental communication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the period for issuance of show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was validly extended before the expiry of six months, thereby precluding a writ directing return of seized gold and Indian currency.

Analysis: Section 110(2) allows return of seized goods if no notice under section 124(a) is given within six months, subject to a first proviso permitting the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to extend that period for reasons recorded in writing and to inform the person before expiry. The respondents produced a note sheet and a communication dated 10.07.2024 showing approval by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) for a six-month extension, with reasons including pending receipt of KYC/IPRR/CAF from telecom providers and the noticee's nonattendance. The petitioner challenged the genuineness and communication of the extension, sought forensic examination of the annexed letter, and relied on alleged procurement of signatures on blank papers and absence of DIN as per Circular No. 43/2019-Customs. The material on record includes an affidavit of a departmental officer affirming issuance and receipt of the extension communication and the note sheet recording reasons and approval. The questions of handwriting, forgery, and signature procurement involve disputed facts and document authenticity that cannot be conclusively resolved in writ proceedings on affidavit alone. The purpose of the proviso-recording reasons in writing and informing the person-is met by approval recorded on the file and the departmental communication; subordinate issuance of the communication does not invalidate the Commissioner's recorded decision. The absence of a DIN does not render the communication void where the department has affirmed its origin by affidavit.

Conclusion: The extension under the first proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was validly recorded and communicated before expiry of the original six-month period; the show-cause notice was issued within the extended period. The writ seeking return of the seized goods is not maintainable and is dismissed.

---