Import of cold rolled stainless steel coils: goods ordered released as seizure vacated due to sixmonth statutory time bar.

Failure to issue a show cause notice within the statutory sixmonth seizure period bars adjudication under the seizure time limit, so the seizure is vacated and goods must be released. A prior waiver of notice does not revive jurisdiction once the sixmonth limit expires. Release in rem is distinct from in personam proceedings; departmental action against persons may continue only if a law or notified BIS standard or a statutory control order is shown to prohibit the imports. Circulars imposing additional NOC requirements without statutory backing cannot sustain detention. Appeal dismissed and goods ordered released.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date of seizure (Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962) is without jurisdiction and whether the seized goods must be returned/released to the importer.

Analysis: The Tribunal analysed the undisputed timeline: goods seized on 27.02.2025; the importer and broker waived issuance of a show cause notice on 25.04.2025 to expedite adjudication; no notice under Section 124 was issued within six months; no extension was sought or granted by the competent authority before the expiry of the six-month period; adjudication order was passed on 06.11.2025, i.e., after the six-month statutory period lapsed. The Tribunal applied binding precedent that a waiver of the right to receive an SCN does not absolve the department of the obligation to complete adjudication within the reasonable period (six months). Failure to issue a notice within six months renders the seizure illegal and the department loses authority to continue holding the goods; subsequent adjudication resting on such seizure is a nullity. The Tribunal therefore confined its decision to this preliminary legal ground and did not decide the merits regarding the Ministry of Steel circulars, NOC validity, or distinctions between house and master bills of lading.

Conclusion: The adjudicating order dated 06.11.2025, having been passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date of seizure, is without jurisdiction and set aside. Consequentially, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties imposed are set aside and the goods are ordered to be released/returned to the importer.

---