2015 (3) TMI 1081 - AT - Customs

Evasion of anti dumping duty - investigation could not be completed due to non-coperation of the persons involved in the import - Invocation of extended period of limitation - whether the extension allowed for issuance of SCN by another six months till 04.09.2014 in respect of the seized goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 2494047 dated 21.06.2013 is valid or otherwise - Held that - reason explained above appears to be genuine and deliberately the appellants were not cooperated to the summons issued. Therefore the investigation could not be completed by the DRI within the stipulated time. Further I find that even though the appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order as stated by the Counsel the investigation has already been completed and the show cause notice dated 03.09.2014 has already been issued and the appellants received the said SCN and have already replied and the proceedings are pending before the adjudicating authority. Considering the above facts I do not find any infirmity in the Order of the Commissioner extending the time lime for another six months for issuance of SCN. Accordingly the impugned order is upheld - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of time for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding seized goods.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the Commissioner (Customs) order regarding the investigation of imports of PVC flex banners of Chinese origin misdeclared through Malaysia to evade anti-dumping duty. The investigation by DRI revealed non-cooperation from involved persons, leading to a request for an extension of time for issuing a show cause notice. The Commissioner extended the period for issuing the notice, prompting the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the show cause notice should have been issued within six months of goods seizure and that they had cooperated with the investigation. They cited a court order acquitting them of related charges. On the other hand, the respondent supported the Commissioner's decision, stating valid reasons for the extension. The main issue was whether the extension granted for issuing the show cause notice was valid. The adjudicating authority highlighted the reasons for the extension, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation due to non-cooperation from the importer. Despite the appellant's appeal, the investigation was completed, and the show cause notice issued. The Tribunal found the reasons for the extension genuine, considering the lack of cooperation from the appellants. Consequently, the Commissioner's order extending the time for issuing the notice was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.