TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny decision of keeping the adjudication pending. Thus, the Petitioner is justified in submitting that the Petitioner was under bonafide belief that the Respondents were not interested in adjudicating the show cause notice and that the same was dropped. There are sufficient merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner that delay in adjudication of the show cause notice constitutes breach of principle of natural justice. In the present case, show cause notice issued in the year 2013 was replied by the Petitioner well within time in the year 2014 itself. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded that the previous Director of the Petitioner, who was looking after the day to day management including the import of goods expired on 19th May 2019 and that no other person was aware about the proceedings of the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was never intimated with respect to adjudication on the show cause notice or the same being kept in the call book - Petitioner is also right in contending that even otherwise pendency of proceedings was not in respect of the Petitioner. Hence it is obvious that revival of show cause notice will seriously prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell 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 duty exemption. The show cause notice further recorded that the Petitioner had availed the benefit of duty free imports under the DFIA license issued to the said exporters and that on the basis of the furnished details, the quantum of import duty foregone on the aforesaid imports were calculated and demanded in the show cause notice. 4. By letter dated 21st January 2014, Petitioner had responded to the show cause notice. In the said reply, the Petitioner had stated all the factual background and also dealt with the contentions raised in the show cause notice. Petitioner had submitted that each of the DFIA licenses were endors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 for our consideration is whether in the present facts, commencement of adjudication proceedings after a long delay of 14 to 17 years is justified when the party in all these years has not been put to notice that the proceedings were kept in abeyance. In fact, this Court, in the case of Bhagwandas Tolani (supra) decided as far back as 1982, has held that even if there is no time limit provided in the statute for adjudication proceeding, yet it is not permissible to commence adjudication proceeding after a long period of 10/15/20 years, particularly when the delay is not on account of any default on the part of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 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 2014, DRI (Lucknow Zonal Unit) informed that these cases can be adjudicated only after validity of the impugned DFIA licenses were decided by DGFT, Kanpur who had issued show cause notices to the original license holders. By letter dated 10th May 2015, DRI, Lucknow had informed that show cause notices were challenged before the Delhi High Court and by Order dated 26th April 2016, DGFT was directed to review the orders passed by Joint DGFT, Kanpur, under Section 16 of the FTDR Act, 1992. There was a review filed and by Order dated 25th October 2017, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. 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 the Respondents were not interested in adjudicating the show cause notice and that the same was dropped. Though the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sought to justify their action to revive the show cause notice after a period of 9 years, the contentions raised by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unreasonable and not supported by any statutory provisions. 15. We have perused the consistent view taken by this Court, that the concerned Authority is under an obligation to adjudicate upon the show cause with expediency. In our view, unreasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
