2018 (7) TMI 351 - AT - Customs

Extension of period of issuance of SCN - Mis-declaration of imported goods - Confiscation - a Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2018 was issued but the investigation could not be completed within the period of six months w.e.f. the date of seizure i.e. 15.11.2017 - Held that - Since the appellant herein is an authorised courier agent, the procedure summarised in Chapter 17 of CBEC s Customs manual perusal thereof shows that in case of postal import including import through courier, the postal parcel as received by the postal service has to be handed over to the Customs alongwith such documents as are mentioned in Rule 8.1(b). In case, the Customs officer doubts any mis-declaration, he may require the postal authority/ courier to detain the same with him - thus, the role of the courier/ the appellant herein is important till the stage of finalisation of the adjudication and even beyond the stage of final adjudication. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. No doubt, it is apparent that Shri Balvinder Singh, proprietor of one of the importers has admitted the intentional mis-declaration on his part vide his initial statement dated 22.11.2017. It is after his statement that the statement of the proprietors of remaining two importers was recorded who tried to shirk their responsibility on the ground of handing over of KYC and other documents to the appellant on their behalf also but through M/s BS Imports. Accordingly, to finally conclude the investigation, the subsequent statement of Shri Balvinder Singh is important - His unavailability on account of being hospitalised, to my opinion is a sufficient cause of delay in not concluding the investigation within the span of six months is required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner Customs has rightly invoked Section 124 of the Act while considering the absence of Shri Balvinder Singh as a sufficient cause for permitting the extension of six months, beyond the period of six months expiring from the date of seizure - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time for issuance of Show Cause Notice beyond the initial six-month period from the date of seizure.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original of the Commissioner of Customs where the period for issuance of the Show Cause Notice was extended beyond the initial six months from the date of seizure. The appellant, an authorized courier, had filed 15 courier bills of entry on behalf of importers, declaring the goods as sample shoes. The goods were seized under the Customs Act for mis-declaration and were liable for confiscation. Despite a Show Cause Notice being issued, the investigation could not be completed within the initial six-month period from the date of seizure, leading to an extension request.

During the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, the order under challenge directed the extension of time, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that the extension was unwarranted, emphasizing the lack of progress in the investigation and the courier's limited liability compared to the importers. The appellant cited a relevant court case to support their position.

The Department rebutted by highlighting the reasons for the time extension, including the unavailability of a key importer due to hospitalization, which hindered the investigation process. The Department justified the extension based on the importer's crucial role in clarifying the situation.

After hearing both sides and considering the legal provisions, the case was deemed a mis-declaration issue subject to confiscation under the Customs Act. The role of the courier in import procedures was outlined, emphasizing their responsibilities until the final adjudication stage. The judgment upheld the extension of time for the Show Cause Notice, citing the importer's absence as a valid reason and rejecting the appeal based on the legal provisions and precedents.

In conclusion, the Commissioner's decision to extend the time for the Show Cause Notice was deemed appropriate given the circumstances, and the appeal was rejected.