9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Extension of time limit for issue of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Applicability of Section 110(2) after goods have been released provisionally. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed sought to vacate the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, granting an extension of time limit for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, had a consignment seized by DRI officers on suspicion of over-valuation for availing undue export incentives. Subsequent investigations revealed exports made to various countries involving substantial values. The Commissioner extended the time limit for issuing a show cause notice due to the complexity of the investigation and involvement of multiple individuals. The appellants opposed the extension, citing reputational damage and vexatious operations. The appeal challenged the legality of the extension, claiming harassment. 2. The appellants argued that as the goods had been released provisionally, the provisions of Section 110(2) were not applicable. They relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their stance. Section 110(2) allows for the extension of the time limit for issuing a show cause notice if goods remain seized. However, in this case, since the goods had already been released provisionally, the legal provision was deemed inapplicable. The learned SDR representing the respondent conceded to this legal position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the non-applicability of Section 110(2) after the release of goods. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation and application of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the extension of time limit for issuing a show cause notice in cases involving seized goods. The decision clarified that once goods have been released provisionally, the said provision is not applicable, as highlighted by legal precedents. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal provisions in customs matters and upheld the appellant's challenge against the extension granted by the Commissioner.
|
