Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1433 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTTime limit for issuance of SCN - Seizure/Detention of goods - Did the CESTAT fall into error in holding that goods had to be released in the circumstances of the case since no notice preceded extension of detention under Proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962? HELD THAT:- There is no time limit for issuing a show cause notice, under Section 124 of the Customs Act. However, in case a show cause notice is not issued, for some reason, Section 110 would operate. Section 110 (2) states that goods cannot be detained for more than six months, unless a show cause notice (i.e. under Section 124) is issued; the proviso clothes the revenue with the power of extending the period by another six months. Under the pre-amended law, the power under the proviso could be exercised, “for sufficient cause” - Now, the amendment has done away with that expression; the power to extend (the period of detention) after amendment states that, “if the Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified.” The change in the statute, in the opinion of this court, is a significant one. The previous provision required the Commissioner to show sufficient cause, which meant that such cause had to be based on objective considerations. The amended provision merely requires the Commissioner to record the reasons in writing and “inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified”. In this court’s considered view, the amended provision deliberately sought to overbear the previous view that a notice before extension was necessary. Now two conditions are to be satisfied: one, the Commissioner has to record his reasons in writing, why the extension is necessary, and two, inform the person from whom such good were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. The latter condition is equally important, in the opinion of this court, because it is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power of extension. The pre-amended provision was silent on this aspect. This Court is of opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|