Section 155 safeguards: show cause notices cannot serve as notice under s155(2); remand only to identify trigger and compute limitation

Statutory safeguards in customs adjudication require that a show cause notice does not suffice as the notice mandated for resumption under section 155(2); therefore validity of proceedings turns on whether the correct triggering event and limitation timeline were identified, and remand is confined to determining that trigger and computing limitation. Adjudicating authorities must follow binding appellate rulings and the principle of judicial discipline; they cannot reopen settled propositions by treating earlier settled law as inapplicable. Executive review remedies and administrative supervisory provisions remain available for disagreement with appellate determinations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the resumed de novo adjudication breached and was tainted by disregard of the Tribunal's earlier final ruling that a show cause notice under section 124 did not constitute the notice required by section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the jurisdictional Commissioner must review the de novo adjudication under section 129D in light of that final appellate determination.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the statutory framework of section 155 and distinguished the protections and procedural preconditions in sub-sections (1) and (2), holding that the safeguard in section 155(2) (prior notice and time-limits) applies and that the show cause notice under section 124 did not satisfy the notice requirement of section 155(2). The Tribunal confined the resumed proceedings to identification of the factual 'trigger' for limitation and compliance with the preliminary requirements specified in section 155(2), and it did not permit re-agitation of the discarded legal proposition. The Tribunal emphasised the binding effect of its earlier ruling on subordinate adjudicating authorities and the principle that appellate determinations attain finality where not challenged, requiring adherence by the original authority. Given the resumed adjudication proceeded without giving effect to that final appellate determination, the Tribunal concluded that the de novo proceedings were tainted and that administrative review under section 129D is the appropriate remedy to test legality and propriety of the impugned de novo order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the resumed adjudication was tainted by non-compliance with its earlier final ruling that a show cause notice under section 124 is not notice under section 155(2), and directed that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs must take up the de novo adjudication for review under section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

---