TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I, New Custom House, Mumbai. 5. Since a very short point is involved, with consent of both sides, we pass this final order. 6. The petitioner claims to be importer and possessing a Import Export Code. He imported glassware, filed a Bill of Entry No.109814 dated 16th February, 2000, and also filed Special Import Licence ("SIL", for short). Since import items were not from restricted category, the value declared in the said bill of entry was Rs. 3,27,998/-. The country of origin was declared as Indonesia. It is stated that the imported goods were assessed provisionally and allowed to be cleared after execution of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3,27,998/- dated 22nd February, 2000. 7. The petitioner claims that several show-cause notices were issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Department did nothing further in pursuance of the orders passed on 7th March, 2001, 18th December, 2000 and 9th March, 2001, but, accepted the said orders. 11. The petitioner approached the authorities by pointing out that a provisional release order was made in this case, but, nothing further has been done nor the file closed. The petitioner be intimated the final outcome of this action. 12. The allegations of the petitioner are that, after 18 years from import and provisional assessment order, the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, issued a letter, in which it is stated that the petitioner should attend the personal hearing for finalizing the subject Bill of Entry. 13. However, in reply to this letter, the petitioner pointed out tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooting that by the petitioner's act of issuance of a letter and in the year 2013, to be precise of 11th February, 2013, the respondents can do away with the statutory requirement or precondition of issuance of a show-cause notice. Mr.Desai, would submit that in the garb of finalizing the proceedings, the Department cannot take recourse to any other provisions, much less Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. All the more, therefore, in this case it was mandatory to issue a show-cause notice raising the demand and then adjudicate it. If they fail to issue it, then, merely because the petitioner addresses a letter does not mean that the law can be breached and violated. In the circumstances, Mr.Desai would submit that when the impugned order re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s may be finally assessed or reassessed, as the case may be, he can assess the provisional duty. According to Mr. Jetly, Sub-section (2) enables adjustment and to be made at the final assessment. He would submit that in this case Section 28, though mentioned in the impugned order, is not the source of the power or the order. In such circumstances, he would submit that there is no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the competent authority. Mr.Jetly would submit that the writ petition be dismissed. 18. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and particularly Mr.Jetly, we have perused the original file. In the original file, there is no copy of the showcau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease. Sd/- 24/9/04 DC/GR-III Letter issued to encashment of BG in file no.S/5-PD-1581/99 pl." 19. Upon perusal of this endorsement, we have no manner of doubt that the process under Section 18 was concluded. Once that process was concluded, then, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have issued a show-cause notice and that was throughout present to the mind of the authorities, as is evident from the endorsements in the file and equally in the impugned order. Section 28, as appearing at the relevant time, and as also today, enables recovery of duties, which have not been levied or have been short levied or erroneously refunded or any interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason other than the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and, particularly the endorsements in the original file, we do not think that Mr.Jetly can argue contrary to the same. Here, on the own showing of the Revenue, the process under Section 18 was finalized as per the endorsement and orders of 24th September, 2004, reproduced above. Thereafter no show-cause notice was issued when the duty allegedly became due and payable and within the time stipulated by law. Thus, if the duty was not levied, but, leviable, then, the requirement in law and particularly Subsection (1) of Section 28 was to issue the show-cause notice and within a period of six months from the relevant date. Admittedly, no such show-cause notice is found in the file. Once, there is no such show-cause notice found in the file, the....