TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms intimating that a personal hearing of the case has been fixed on 18 January 2013. 2. On 28 December 1996, a notice to show cause was issued to Beacon Maritime Carriers Pvt. Ltd. for a failure to export and to account for 59 cargo containers. During the course of the personal hearing on 25 June 1997, the adjudicating authority was informed by the Advocate appearing for the noticee that its contract had been terminated on 16 November 1996 by the principal shipping agency (National Shipping Agency of Saudi Arabia) and a fresh contract had been awarded to DBC Freight International. The letter dated 17 November 1996 of the principal shipping agency provided an undertaking to satisfactorily account for the cargo covered by the Import General ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainers and requested the Commissioner of Customs to release and discharge Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. from the bonds which were submitted to the Union Government. The letter of the Petitioners inter alia furnished the following undertaking: "Under express authority and on behalf of our said principals The National Shipping company of Saudi Arabia, we now hereby unconditionally agree and undertake to satisfactorily account for all cargoes covered in all IGMs filed by Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, and further to pay all and any sums whatsoever outstanding due and/or payable by Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd., on demand, without any protest or demur, in respect of vessel and/or container/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detained by the concerned agencies. In the present case, it has been stated that the goods in the disputed containers were seized by the DRI and proceedings in relation to the cargo were pending before the CESTAT. On this ground, it has been stated in the reply that the present case was taken out of the call book. Subsequently, according to the Department, the case was placed for adjudication in pursuance of which, a notice was issued to the Petitioners to remain present for a hearing before the adjudicating authority on 18 December 2012. 8. The contention of the Petitioners is that in the present case: (i) The issuance of a show cause notice was barred by limitation since in the absence of collusion, suppression or willful mis-statement, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght International was appointed; secondly, upon the termination of the contract of DBC Freight International, Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as agent; and thirdly, upon the termination of the contract of the second agent, in its place the Petitioners were appointed as agents. By their letter dated 19 August 2002 (Annexure R- 9 to the reply), the Petitioners unconditionally agreed and undertook to satisfactorily account for all cargo covered in all IGMs filed by the previous agent on behalf of the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the Petitioners undertook to pay all sums whatsoever outstanding, due and/or payable in respect of vessel and/or the container/cargo-related matters. The Petitioners specifically state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject to an investigation by the DRI and proceedings in relation thereto were pending. There was a change in the agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia from time to time and the Petitioners held out a solemn undertaking to the Department that they accepted all responsibility in consideration of which they sought a release or discharge of the previous agent from all liabilities. Whether there has been a delay of such a nature that it would be inequitable to compel a noticee to defend the proceedings has to be adjudged on the basis of each individual case. There can be no inflexible rule and the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has to consider on the facts of a particular case, whether the delay is of suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.) holding that the Department is not entitled to hold adjudication proceedings after a long time since this would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the noticee. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court, following the Learned Single Judge in Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate. 2010 (254) E.L.T. 259 (Bom.) In the case before the Division Bench, it was noticed that almost for a period of twelve years, no steps were taken by the Respondents to proceed with the adjudication proceedings. The Division Bench also noticed that the absence of the relevant record due to a lapse of more than twelve years was also a factual aspect which had to be taken into account. It w....