2017 (2) TMI 709 - HC - Customs

Legality and validity of SCN - petitioner relies upon sub-section-2 of Section 110 to submit that if any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized - Held that - when the show cause notice was given within six months, if given is to mean to be issued and served , that has also taken place within six months, then, we do not think that we should entertain this Writ Petition - the show cause notice is valid - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Compliance with the statutory period for issuing the show cause notice.
3. Authority of the Customs House Agent to receive the show cause notice on behalf of the Petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The Petitioner, a sole proprietor of M/s Maa Tara Enterprises, challenged the legality and validity of a show cause notice issued by the customs authorities. The Petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not given within the prescribed period of six months as mandated by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. This section requires that if no notice is given within six months of the seizure of goods, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The Petitioner contended that the notice was dispatched on 23rd September 2016 and delivered on 27th September 2016, beyond the statutory period.

2. Compliance with the Statutory Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The Respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, countered that the show cause notice was issued within the six-month period. The goods were seized on 23rd March 2016, and the show cause notice was issued on 22nd September 2016. The Respondents argued that the Customs House Agent, M/s DV Shipping, was authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the Petitioner and had collected it on 22nd September 2016. Additionally, the notice was posted by Speed Post on 23rd September 2016 and displayed on the Notice Board at JNPT Nhava Sheva on 22nd September 2016.

3. Authority of the Customs House Agent to Receive the Show Cause Notice:
The Petitioner argued that the Customs House Agent, M/s DV Shipping, was not specifically authorized to receive the show cause notice. However, the Respondents provided a letter dated 22nd September 2016 from M/s DV Shipping stating that they were authorized by the Petitioner to receive the notice. The court found that the Petitioner did not disclose the role of the Customs House Agent in the Writ Petition and did not file a rejoinder affidavit to counter this assertion. The court noted that the Petitioner’s argument regarding the lack of specific authorization was an afterthought and lacked substance.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the show cause notice was issued and served within the statutory period of six months. The Customs House Agent, M/s DV Shipping, was duly authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the Petitioner. The court found no merit in the Petitioner’s arguments and dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the show cause notice was valid. The court did not delve into the interpretation of the sections and judgments relied upon by the parties, as the facts and circumstances of the case were clear. The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs.