Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1021 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of export consignments covered under the three shipping bills - Period of six months from the date of seizure expired - whether different authorities can proceed with respect to the same transaction if liabilities arising from one transaction are in respect of different legislations under which the authorities operate and there is no bar and/or impediment in doing so? - interpretation of amended proviso to Section 110 (2) of Customs Act. HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 110 (2) as it originally stood, that is prior to 29.03.2018 conferred power on the authority to extend the period of issuance of Show Cause Notice under section 124 (a) of the Act by further period not extending 6 months on “sufficient cause” being shown. The important change that has been brought about by the amendment with effect from 29.03.2018 is that the authority can extend the period of issuance of Show Cause Notice for a further period of 6 months by recording reasons in writing and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. The question would be whether in terms of the amended proviso the person from whom the goods were seized is entitled to be heard before the time for issuance of Show Cause Notice is extended by the authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated decision in the case of Tulsiram Patel while answering the question as to whether the principle of natural justice be modified or in exceptional cases can it even be excluded to be read that the rule of audi alteram partem is a subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it as pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. MOHAPATRA & CO. VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [1984 (8) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held that where a right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order is passed would obstruct taking of prompt action such a right can be excluded. Such a right can also be excluded where action is to be taken its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrants its exclusion nor can the audi alteram partem rule to be invoked, if importing it would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or urgency of taking action so demands. The person from whose possession the goods have been seized is entitled to notice of the proposal before the authority for the extension of the original period of 6 months mentioned in Section 110 (2) of the Act and he is also entitled to heard upon such proposal, subject to the restrictions that he is not entitled to information as to the investigation which is in process, because there can be no right in any person to be informed midway, during an investigation of the materials collected in the case against him and moreover there is a need for maintaining confidentiality of the investigation proceedings. While on the issue, it will be relevant to take note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that when words in statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences and it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act - The other tools of interpretation namely contextual or purposive interpretation cannot be applied nor any resort be made to look to other supporting materials especially in taxation statutes where equity has no place. Petition dismissed.
|