Customs SCN and adjudication order quashed after 12-year delay violates Section 28(9) mandatory timelines

Delhi HC quashed SCN dated 20th June 2012 and Order-in-Original dated 26th March 2024 due to unjustified delay in adjudication. Despite SCN being issued in 2012 and detailed replies filed by petitioners, adjudication was completed only after 12 years. Court held that statutory timelines under Section 28(9) are mandatory and cannot be bypassed by administrative delays. Repeated placement in call book and removal thereof does not justify non-adjudication for 15 years. Court rejected customs department's argument that delay was due to petitioners' requests for additional documents.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 20th June 2012 and the subsequent Order-in-Original dated 26th March 2024 was conducted within the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Whether the repeated placement of the SCN in the Call Book constitutes a valid justification for the delay in adjudication.
• The impact of the amendment to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act on the adjudication process and whether the phrase "where it is possible to do so" allows for indefinite delays.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it stood prior to the amendment, provided a timeline of six months to one year for adjudication of SCNs. The amendment removed the phrase "where it is possible to do so," indicating a legislative intent to enforce stricter timelines. The Court referenced several precedents, including Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and M/s Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr., which emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court interpreted Section 28(9) to mean that the adjudicating authority is required to conclude proceedings within the specified time unless genuinely hindered by factors beyond control. The Court found that the phrase "where it is possible to do so" does not permit indefinite delays and that the amendment further underscores this by removing the phrase altogether.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court noted that the SCN was issued on 20th June 2012, and the Order-in-Original was passed almost 12 years later, in 2024. The SCN was placed in the Call Book on multiple occasions, significantly delaying the adjudication process. The Petitioners had requested additional documents, but the Court found that the delay was primarily due to the actions of the Customs Department.

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the legal principles from the aforementioned precedents, concluding that the Customs Department failed to adjudicate the SCN within the statutory period. The repeated placement of the SCN in the Call Book did not justify the delay, as there was no substantial reason preventing the adjudication.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Customs Department argued that the delay was due to the Petitioners' requests for additional documents and the placement of the SCN in the Call Book. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive, noting that the Department did not provide sufficient justification for the prolonged delay and that the Petitioners' actions did not warrant such an extensive delay.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the SCN and the Order-in-Original were not adjudicated within the statutory time limits, rendering them unsustainable. The Court emphasized that statutory timelines must be adhered to, and the Department's failure to do so invalidated the proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"The indifference of the concerned officer to complete the adjudication within the time period as mandated, cannot be condoned to the detriment of the assessee. Such indifference is not only detrimental to the interest of the taxpayer but also to the exchequer."

Core principles established:

• Adjudication of SCNs must occur within the statutory timelines prescribed by the Customs Act, and delays cannot be justified by the phrase "where it is possible to do so."
• The placement of SCNs in the Call Book does not provide a valid excuse for indefinite delays in adjudication.
• Amendments to Section 28(9) reflect a legislative intent to enforce stricter adherence to timelines.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The SCN dated 20th June 2012 and the Order-in-Original dated 26th March 2024 were quashed due to non-compliance with statutory timelines.
• The Court reinforced the necessity for timely adjudication to protect the interests of taxpayers and the exchequer.

The petitions were allowed, and both the SCN and the Order-in-Original were set aside, with all pending applications disposed of accordingly.

---