2013 (4) TMI 388 - HC - Customs

Quashing of Show cause notice as barred by limitation -assessee appeal - a notice to show cause was issued to Beacon Maritime Carriers Pvt. Ltd. for a failure to export and to account for 59 cargo containers - Held that - The present case is not one where no action whatsoever was taken by the Customs authorities. On the other hand, as the record would indicate, a personal hearing was held from time to time during the course of which, the Adjudicating Officer was informed of subsequent changes in the agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. The Department was apprised of that fact that adjudication proceedings in relation to the cargo were pending and a conscious decision was taken to take the adjudication in the present case out of the call book. Ultimately, whether the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should quash a notice to show cause, purely on the ground of delay, is a matter which has to be decided in each individual case. Thus non satisfying that the interest of justice will require the quashing of the proceedings in the present case. The Petitioners have the full range of defences open in regard to the notice to show cause in the course of adjudication proceedings. No merit in the Petition. The Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality of notice to show cause and communication of personal hearing dates.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought to challenge the legality of a notice to show cause dated 22 September 2000 and a communication dated 18 December 2012 regarding a personal hearing. The notice was related to a failure to export and account for cargo containers.

2. The history of events leading to the notice includes changes in shipping agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. The petitioners took over responsibilities from previous agents and provided undertakings to satisfactorily account for cargo and pay outstanding sums related to vessel and cargo matters.

3. The petitioners raised contentions regarding the notice being barred by limitation, failure of the department to adjudicate since 2000, and ownership of goods and containers by the shippers. They argued that the delay invalidated the notice and containers could not be re-exported due to ownership issues and detention at a warehouse.

4. The court analyzed the timeline of events, including notices, adjudication proceedings, and changes in agents. It was noted that the petitioners had undertaken responsibilities and sought release of previous agents from liabilities. The court emphasized that delay considerations must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

5. The court refrained from making findings on limitation issues and the merits of the defense raised by the petitioners, stating that these are matters for adjudication. Reference was made to previous judgments highlighting the need for a case-specific approach in determining the impact of delay on proceedings.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioners. It was concluded that the interest of justice did not require quashing the proceedings, and the petitioners could present their defenses during adjudication. No costs were awarded in the matter.