2021 (9) TMI 1377 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory Appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Since, the Review Petition No. 400-403/2021 filed by the Respondents against the judgment in Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT is pending before the Supreme Court, liberty is granted to the parties to move the Court for final hearing of the Petition on priority basis once the order/judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court in the said Review Petition. The issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition is kept open.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the proper officer for re-assessment under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962; Maintainability of the Writ Petition in light of the Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought relief from the High Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition or Certiorari against the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 14 February 2017, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction based on a Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners' Senior Counsel referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing that re-assessment under Section 28(4) must be conducted by the same officer or his successor who initially assessed the goods. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Director General of DRI was not the proper officer for such re-assessment, rendering the recovery proceedings initiated by them as without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the Impugned Show Cause Notice should be quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Respondents, represented by their Senior Counsel, argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs was specific to statutory Appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act 1962 arising from a CESTAT order. They contended that the Writ Petition before the High Court was not maintainable based on this distinction. However, the Respondents' submission was met with the grant of interim relief by the High Court, directing that the Respondents refrain from adjudicating the Impugned Show Cause Notice during the pendency of the petition. Additionally, the High Court acknowledged a Review Petition filed by the Respondents against the Supreme Court judgment, granting liberty to parties to seek a priority hearing once the Supreme Court renders a decision on the Review Petition. The issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition was left open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court's analysis centered on the jurisdictional aspect of re-assessment under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The conflicting interpretations between the parties regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment to the present case raised questions about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The High Court's decision to grant interim relief and prioritize the final hearing based on the pending Review Petition underscored the complexity of the legal issues involved and the need for further clarification from the apex court.