2023 (4) TMI 357 - HC - Customs

Demand of custom duty raised under Section 28B of the Customs Act 1962 - proceedings initiated were barred by limitation or not - respondent had imported goods for supply to the Ordinance Equipment Factory Kanpur (OEF) without payment of duty - benefit of the N/N. 39/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that the period of limitation as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act is a period of five years from the relevant date. It is thus apparent that the learned CESTAT had proceeded on the basis that a reasonable period for taking an action under Section 28B of the Customs Act would also be a period of five years - Thus even if it is accepted that the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act cannot per se be imputed to any action under Section 28B of the Customs Act there can be no cavil that action should be taken within a reasonable period. In this case it is apparent that the learned CESTAT found that the period of five years which is the prescribed period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act would be a reasonable period. The 39 Bills of Entries were filed during the period of August 1996 to January 2004. The Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2013 has been issued approximately nine years after the last Bill of Entry. In the given facts we are unable to accept that the appellant had issued the notice within a reasonable period. There is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impugning an order setting aside the demand of custom duty on the ground of limitation.
2. Allegation of availing benefit of custom duty exemption certificates by importing goods without payment of duty.
3. Demand of custom duty, interest, and penalty on imported goods.
4. Appeal against the upheld demand proposed in the Show Cause notice.
5. Controversy regarding the demand raised beyond the period of limitation under Section 28B of the Customs Act.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging an order setting aside the demand of custom duty under Section 28B of the Customs Act, citing that the proceedings were time-barred. The controversy centered around 39 Bills of Entry involving the importation of goods without payment of duty for supply to a specific entity.

Issue 2:
The respondent was accused of utilizing forged custom duty exemption certificates to import goods without duty payment. Two Show Cause Notices were issued, demanding a sum related to Bills of Entries filed during a specific period, which the respondent had imported without paying customs duty and had later recovered from the purchaser. The demand, interest, and penalty were upheld by the CESTAT.

Issue 3:
The respondent appealed against the upheld demand in the Show Cause notice, specifically contesting the proposed amount. The customs authority raised a substantial demand in relation to 39 Bills of Entries filed over a period of several years.

Issue 4:
The respondent's response to the Show Cause Notice and subsequent appeal to the CESTAT were considered. The CESTAT found the demand to be beyond the period of limitation, referencing relevant legal precedents to support its decision.

Issue 5:
The appellant argued that since Section 28B of the Customs Act does not prescribe a limitation period, the CESTAT erred in setting aside the demand on grounds of being time-barred. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of taking action within a reasonable period even when no specific limitation is provided by the statute. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the notice was issued after an unreasonable delay from the last relevant event, thus upholding the decision based on the principle of reasonable timeframes for statutory actions.