Reasonable time for customs bond enforcement: long-delayed demand for export obligation documents was held unsustainable.

A bond enforcement-cum-demand notice for non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates was held unsustainable because it was issued after an inordinate delay. Although Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe a specific limitation period, the Court applied the principle that such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. The demand was raised nearly 17 years after the imports and the matter was reopened again after about 22 years, which the Court treated as unreasonable. The impugned notice and consequential order were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a bond enforcement cum demand notice issued after a long delay for non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates was sustainable in law.

Analysis: Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe a specific limitation for proceeding on the bond, but the power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The petitioner had been called upon to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificates nearly 17 years after the relevant imports, and the proceedings were re-opened again after about 22 years. The delay was treated as inordinate. The Court also noted that analogous jurisprudence on delayed show cause notices and the absence of a statutory time limit supported the requirement that action be taken within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The notice and the consequential order were unsustainable for having been initiated after an inordinate and unreasonable delay.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where the governing customs provision does not prescribe an express limitation period, proceedings to enforce a bond for non-production of export obligation documents must be initiated within a reasonable time, and an inordinate delay renders the action unsustainable.

---