9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly overvalued and accordingly, those were seized for further investigation on 8.8.2018 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Customs Act") under the reasonable belief that the same was liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act as the IEC holder were not found to be actual importer and also the truthful declaration were not made as mandated under Section 46 of Customs Act. 3. Show Cause Notices in these cases could not be issued to be appellants before 25.10.2018 i.e. within six months from the date of detention of the goods. The DRI requested to extend the period of issuing show cause notice by another six months under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 of Customs Act for the reasons contained in letter F. No. DRI/DZU/JRU/19/INT-11/ENQ.23/2018/1866 dated 12.10.2018 to the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. In the said letter of DRI, the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur was appraised of various difficulties in not issuing the Show Cause Notice within the prescribed time of six months from the date of detention/seizure of the goods. Being aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed these appeals befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Show Cause Notice. He, accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow release of seized goods for the violation of the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act. 5. Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and stated that the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, after being amended by Finance Act, 2018, wherein 'ON SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEING SHOWN" has been replaced by "FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING," for extension of time period for a further period not extending six months and inform the person concerned from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of period so specified. He, therefore, argued that in the requirement for issuance of Show Cause Notice before extending the time period by another six months has been done away with and hence there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner in these cases. On being asked, he has also made available the investigation file before the Bench. He, thereafter, submitted that in these cases the investigation could not be completed due to the various reasons including the overseas enquiry and hence the investigating agency requested Commissioner to extend the time period for is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication and deemed closure of cases of tose timelines are not adhered to." Clause 90 of the Bill seeks, to amend Section 110 of the Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where no order for provisional release of goods has been passed. We find that similar issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 75047-75048/2018 dated 17.1.2019 in the case of S.R.K. Metal & Industries & Pink Commercial, wherein it is held as under: "Our attention was also drawn towards the decision of Sardar Kulwant Singh vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, wherein it is held that an order extending period of issue of Show Cause Notice under Section 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party is illegal. Further, the requirement of issue of Show Cause Notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act in such a case was held to be a must relying upon the various judgments referred as above. Relying on these judgments, we find that the seized goods are required to be returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussed above, even after insertion of with new sentence in the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. In fact, we are of the view that after amendment not only the Show Cause Notice is required to be issued by the Adjudicating Authority, but he has also to give a reasoned order after hearing the Investigation Officer and also taking view of the affected party from whom seizure has been made as his personal right is being deprived of which emanate from the Section 110(1) of the Act that entitled him to got the goods returned which has been seized from his possession. This is also cleared from statements of objects in the Finance Act as discussed above. 13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is in violation in this provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act has held in the various decisions discussed above. We have also seen the note sheet order of the Ld. Commissioner in this case. It is seen from the order that the Commissioner while extending the time period has only gone by the letter of DRI and not put up to him by his office without examining the merits of the such extension and recording his own finding. His finding is only two worded findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
