2010 (9) TMI 269 - AT - Customs

Penalty - on restricted commodity - export consignments - commodity declared was quartz powder On chemical test they were found to be potassium chloride - Potassium chloride is a restricted commodity for export - During the course of investigation 500 MT of potassium chloride which had already been exported was also called back which was also found to be potassium chloride - It is the claim of the appellant that he is not the owner of the goods and therefore extension of time for issue of show cause notice in respect of seized goods cannot cause any prejudice to him if his claim that he is not the owner is correct - Held that - appellant has not been able to make out a case at all in his favour and has not been able to show why the order passed by the Commissioner has to be set aside. Under these circumstances, we find that appeal has no merit and accordingly the same has to be rejected

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time limit for issue of show cause notice under Section 110 (2) of Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an early hearing application against the Commissioner's order extending the time limit for issuing a show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's export consignments were held due to discrepancies in the declared commodity. Investigations revealed that the exported commodity was a restricted item, potassium chloride, instead of quartz powder as declared. The appellant, along with others, was involved in the procurement and export of potassium chloride. The Commissioner extended the time limit for investigation citing the complexity of issues like ascertaining the source of potassium chloride, the role of involved parties, and the need for further statements and documents. The appellant opposed the extension, claiming no involvement in the export and only providing financial support. However, the appellant failed to demonstrate how the extension would prejudice him, especially since he claimed not to be the owner of the goods in question. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

The appellant also filed a stay petition, which was deemed unnecessary as there was no demand against him. Since the appeal was rejected, the stay petition was also dismissed. The Tribunal allowed the early hearing application and pronounced the rejection of the stay petition and the appeal.