TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... why import duty foregone on the import amounting to Rs. 1,66,03,427/-(One Crore Sixty Six Lacs Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) should not be demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AA/28AB of the Customs Act 1962. The adjudication of the show cause notice was kept pending for almost 9 years. The Superintendent of Customs, Adjudication(Export), by letter dated 26th August 2022, for the first time called upon the Petitioner for personal hearing scheduled on 8th September 2022. Hence, the Petitioner filed the present Petition for challenging the show cause notice as well as sought directions, thereby restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the show cause notice. 3. It is contented by the Petitioner that the show cause notice was issued on the information received that several Exporters (M/s Pan Parag India Ltd. Kanpur, M/s Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur, M/s Kothari Food and Fragrances, Kanpur and M/s Shiv Shakti Agri Foods Ltd., Delhi) had made irregular exports and had obtained DFIA (Duty Free Import Authorisation) licences on the basis of the said export to get undue benefits of import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued involving collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, should be adjudicated within a period of one year. Thus, the Petitioner submitted that the action of the Respondents of seeking to revive the adjudication proceedings after inordinate and unjustifiable delay of 9 years is arbitrary and in breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Petitioner submitted that the show cause notice deserves to be quashed and set aside, the same being arbitrary and illegal. 7. Mr Shah on behalf of the Petitioner has relied upon various decisions to support the contentions of the Petitioner, that pendency of adjudication of show cause notice for a prolonged period is unjustified and warrants quashing of the show cause notice on the ground of delay. Mr Shah has relied the Judgment of this Court in the case of Raymond Limited v Union of India 2019(368) E.L.T. 481(Bom.) which lays down the proposition that delay in adjudication of show cause notice amounts to breach of principles of natural justice and thus quashed and set aside the show cause notice on the ground of delay. This Court in paragraph 7 has observed as under: 7. In the aforesaid facts, the issue that arises ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice amounts to breach of principles of natural justice, Mr Shah has also relied upon various other Judgments of this Court in cases of (1) Parle International Ltd v Union of India 2021 (375) E.L.T. 633 (Bom.), (2) Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd v Union of India 2018 (12) G.S.T.L.290 (Bom.), (3) Reliance Transport and Travel Pvt. Ltd v The Union of India 2022 (3) TMI 1169, (4) ATA Freight Line(I) Pvt Ltd v Union of India 2022 (3) TMI 1162, (5) Rachana Garments Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs 2022 (8) TMI 345, (6) Beico Industries Pvt Ltd. v the Union of India & Ors 2022(8) TMI 1090, (7) Lanvin Synthetics Private Ltd v Union of India 2015 (322) E.L.T. 429(Bom.), (8) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v Union of India 2022 (9) TMI 318. 10. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and reasons are sought to be made out for revival of the show cause notice. It is contended on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that by Order dated 2nd May 2014 in terms of Notification dated 7th March 2002, 16 cases were assigned by DRI, Lucknow to the Commissioner of Customs (Export) (ACC). The Affidavit in Reply further states that on 10th November 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered under the provision of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. With these contentions, it was submitted that there was no merit in the Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, the question to be decided is that, whether the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were justified in law by keeping the adjudication of the show cause notice pending for a period of 9 years and that whether they were justified in reviving the show cause notice. 14. Perusal of the show cause notice shows that the breach alleged for initiating action for demanding the forgone import duty was on the ground of irregular exports by the exporters and breach of the provisions committed by the exporters. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had promptly replied the show cause notice well within time in the year 2014 itself. It is further not in dispute that the Petitioner was never intimated in respect of any adjudication of the show cause notice and/or any decision of keeping the adjudication pending. Thus, the Petitioner is justified in submitting that the Petitioner was under bonafide belief that....