2019 (7) TMI 1230 - HC - Customs

Service of SCN - SCN was served on the petitioner in person on the same day - HELD THAT - At request of Revenue Counsel, to get instructions, list this matter on 17.07.2019 in the 'Motion List'.

Summary

Issues:
1. Short time granted to respond to show cause notice (SCN)
2. Breach of procedure under Section 8 of the Foreign Trade Development Act
3. Passing of the impugned order by a different officer

Issue 1: Short time granted to respond to show cause notice (SCN)
The writ petitioner received a show cause notice (SCN) on 15.05.2019 and was asked to appear before the issuing officer, Ms. Shakuntala Naik, on 17.05.2019 at 3.30 p.m. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the time granted to respond was too short, expressing difficulties in responding. It was contended that this short notice was in breach of the procedure outlined in Section 8 of the Foreign Trade Development Act, which deals with the suspension of Importer-Exporter Codes (IECs).

Issue 2: Breach of procedure under Section 8 of the Foreign Trade Development Act
The counsel highlighted that the procedure outlined in Section 8 of the Foreign Trade Development Act was not followed properly. It was argued that overlooking the difficulties expressed by the petitioner in responding to the SCN and the short time granted were procedural breaches. The counsel emphasized that adherence to the statutory procedures is crucial in matters concerning the suspension of IECs.

Issue 3: Passing of the impugned order by a different officer
A significant contention raised was that while the writ petitioner appeared before the officer who issued the SCN, Ms. Shakuntala Naik, the impugned order was passed by another officer, Mr. Varun Singh. This discrepancy raised concerns regarding the procedural propriety of the decision-making process. The counsel likely argued that the decision-making authority should have been consistent throughout the proceedings to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.

In response to the raised issues, the Senior Panel Counsel representing the Central Government sought time to obtain instructions and make submissions. Additionally, the Junior Standing Counsel for Customs & Excise, representing the second respondent, acknowledged the notice but clarified the limited role of the second respondent in challenging the impugned order. The matter was adjourned to 17.07.2019 as per the request of the Revenue Counsel to allow time for obtaining instructions. The judgment highlighted the procedural irregularities and discrepancies in the handling of the case, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory procedures and consistency in decision-making authorities in such matters.