Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 19 - HC - CustomsMaintainability - jurisdiction of SCN issued by the Additional Director General, Department of Revenue Intelligence under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Resident of USA - several rounds of litigation - is the petition maintainable where the Petitioner is trying to initiate another round of litigation for the same relief after having been unsuccessful in the several rounds of litigation in which interestingly he never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the officer who issued the SCN? Held that - permitting the Petitioner at this stage, nearly 12 years later, to challenge the SCN or the adjudication order arising out of a SCN issued more than 12 years ago would constitute condoning a blatant abuse of the process of law. The decision in the case of Chandrabhai K. Bhoir & Ors. Versus Krishna Arjun Bhoir & Ors. 2008 (11) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT relied upon. Petition not maintainable, dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to Show Cause Notice jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The petition challenges a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner, Lindt Exports, through its Sole Proprietor, contests the validity of the SCN dated 24th December 2004. The petitioner argues that prior to 8th April 2011, officers of the DRI were not 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, hence lacked the authority to issue or adjudicate SCNs. The petitioner relies on legal precedents to support the contention that a decree passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio and can be challenged at any stage. The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing counsel for the DRI, opposes the relief sought in the petition. It is highlighted that the impugned SCN has been adjudicated, resulting in an order confirming the demand raised in the SCN. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the CESTAT required a pre-deposit, which was not made in a timely manner. Despite delays, the petitioner eventually made the pre-deposit, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including appeals and applications to various courts. The Court's analysis includes a reference to a previous judgment interpreting Section 28(11) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the amendment aimed to address administrative issues but did not fully resolve concerns regarding the authority of customs officers issuing SCNs. The Court notes the extensive litigation history of the petitioner, culminating in multiple failed attempts to challenge the SCN or related orders. The Court deems the petitioner's delay in raising jurisdictional issues as an abuse of the legal process, refusing to entertain the petition due to the repeated attempts to litigate the same matter after previous failures. In the final decision, the Court dismisses the writ petition and related applications, emphasizing the petitioner's numerous unsuccessful attempts to challenge the SCN jurisdiction. The Court refrains from awarding costs in this case, considering the circumstances.
|