2025 (8) TMI 21 - HC - Customs

Appeal dismissed on limitation; case remanded for fresh hearing under Section 14 with six-week deadline for records

M/s. Sri Sairam Agro Foods, Represented by its Proprietor, V. Nandagopalan. Versus The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) Coimbatore, The Additional Commissioner Customs, M/s. Pentagon Shipping Service, Tuticorin

M/s. Sri Sairam Agro Foods, Represented by its Proprietor, V. Nandagopalan. Versus The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals) Coimbatore, The ... ISSUES: Whether the appeal against the penalty order under the Customs Act, 1962, was barred by limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act.Whether the penalty imposed under Section 114 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on the exporter for attempting to export prohibited goods and for mis-declaration was valid.Whether the Customs House Agent could be held liable under Section 114 of the Customs Act for the alleged violation.Whether the petitioner was properly served with the show cause notice and given an opportunity of hearing before the Order-in-Original was passed.Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated due to misuse of their Import and Export Code by the Customs House Agent. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The appeal filed by the exporter was dismissed on the ground of limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.The appeal filed by the Customs House Agent against the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.The penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 114(i), Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 114AA, and a redemption fine under Section 125 were imposed on the exporter for attempting to export prohibited goods and for intentional mis-declaration.The petitioner claimed non-involvement in filing the shipping bill and alleged misuse of their Import and Export Code by the Customs House Agent, asserting no receipt of show cause notice or opportunity to be heard prior to the Order-in-Original.The Court remitted the matter back to the Appellate Commissioner for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to request production of records and ensuring the exercise be completed within six weeks. RATIONALE: The Court applied the limitation period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, to dismiss the appeal filed beyond the prescribed time.The penalties were imposed under Sections 114, 114AA, 113, and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning export of prohibited goods, mis-declaration, confiscation, and redemption fine respectively.The Court recognized the importance of the principles of natural justice, noting the petitioner's claim of lack of notice and hearing before the Order-in-Original, and accordingly ordered remand for fresh consideration.The decision reflects the procedural safeguard that an appellant must be given an opportunity to be heard and access to relevant records before final adjudication, especially where allegations of misuse of Import and Export Code and false implication arise.