2017 (2) TMI 469 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of the Customs Authorities to issue SCN - validity of SCN - the SCN has been issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs and the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Commissioner of Customs and show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated - Held that - the petitioner presented the goods with the documents, at that time itself, the Customs Authorities informed the petitioner that goods will not be accepted, unless he produces the certificate from the Wild Life Authorities. The petitioner could have easily taken back the goods and gone, but he did not do so. The expression reason to believe is distinct from reasonable belief and suspicion . In this case, only after obtaining a certificate from the Wild Life Authorities that the goods in question is made of Red Sanders, the Seizure Officer of the Customs Department had the reason to believe that it is liable for confiscation. Therefore, the act of the Customs Officers in waiting for opinion from the Wild Life Authorities before taking action under Section 110 of the Act cannot be said to be illegal. The case at hand was investigated by the Customs Authorities themselves and not by an officer of the DRI. The power of the Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice and proceed with the adjudication process is beyond any cavil. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs under Customs Act, 1962 for improper exportation of goods exceeding value limit.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an exporter, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act, 1962. The notice alleged improper exportation of goods valued at ?1.35 crores, seeking confiscation and penalties under various sections of the Act.

2. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to issue the notice due to the value of the goods. However, the notice indicated approval by the Commissioner of Customs, and there was no legal requirement for adjudicating authority to issue the notice.

3. The petitioner also argued the notice was issued beyond the limitation period of six months from the seizure of goods. The court clarified that the seizure occurred after obtaining a certificate from Wildlife Authorities, thus falling within the limitation period.

4. The Customs Officer's power to seize goods is based on "reason to believe," requiring sufficient cause for belief. In this case, the Customs Officers waited for confirmation from Wildlife Authorities before seizing the goods, ensuring legality and avoiding hasty actions.

5. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment, but the court differentiated the case context, emphasizing that the present matter involved a show cause notice, not final orders. The Customs Authorities' power to issue notices and proceed with adjudication was upheld.

6. Ultimately, the court found the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it, highlighting the legality of the show cause notice and the Customs Authorities' actions in the investigation and adjudication process.