2019 (4) TMI 1185 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner of Customs to extend the period for issue of SCN - whether the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to extend the period for issue of Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 110, by a period of six months, Suo Moto, without reference to the person from whom the goods were seized? - Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - provisional release of goods - HELD THAT - The amendment to the provisions has been made w.e.f. 29/03/2918. The original six months period from the date of seizure was to expire on 26/04/2018. Since the amended provisions have come into effect before such date, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Customs is fully empowered to pass such order for extension without reference to the person from whom the goods were seized. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to consider the request made on behalf of the appellant for provisional release of the goods - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time for issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 without reference to the appellant - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Perishable nature of seized goods - Provisional release of goods - Legality of the Commissioner's order for extension.

Analysis:

1. Extension of Time for Show Cause Notice:
The appellant challenged the extension of time for issuance of Show Cause Notice by the Commissioner without involving the appellant, contending a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The appellant's advocate argued that the seized goods, betel nuts, being perishable, would deteriorate with time. The Commissioner extended the period for issuance of Show Cause Notice by six months from the date of the order, which was under challenge in the appeal proceedings.

2. Legal Provisions and Amendments:
The amended Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Commissioner to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice by up to six months without reference to the person from whom the goods were seized. The amendment came into effect before the original six-month period from the date of seizure expired, making the Commissioner's order valid. The Tribunal cited the case of UOI Vs. Uttam Steel Ltd. to support the retrospective nature of amendments to procedural laws.

3. Decision and Ruling:
After considering both sides and perusing the record, the Tribunal deliberated on the key issue of whether the Commissioner had the authority to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice suo moto. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order for extension, citing the retrospective effect of procedural law amendments. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the appellant's request for provisional release of the goods, emphasizing the need for a response to such requests in a timely manner.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order for extension and sustained it. However, the Tribunal instructed the Commissioner to address the appellant's request for provisional release of the goods promptly. With these observations, the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of considering the perishable nature of seized goods and the need for procedural fairness in customs proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal nuances, procedural aspects, and the Tribunal's rationale in addressing the issues raised in the appeal, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.