2020 (2) TMI 1264 - HC - Customs

Admissibility of application - issuance of show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - guilty of suppression of material facts - case of the transferee is that they are not liable on the show cause notice - HELD THAT - The tribunal in its impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 ought to have followed that decision and rules in favour of the appellant but did not do so - This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is formally admitted. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of duty free advance license transfer, liability of transferee on show cause notice, applicability of CESTAT ruling, need for elucidation of law.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Md. Nizamuddin, considered an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the appellant, who is the transferee of duty free advance license/licenses from an importer. The appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the license, while the importer faced allegations of suppression of material facts. Consequently, a show cause-cum-demand notice was issued to the appellant by the respondent authorities under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, invoking a longer period of limitation of five years and demanding duty, interest, penalty, etc., in lieu of confiscation of goods. The appellant contended that they are not liable under the show cause notice. The appellant relied on a ruling of the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in a specific case, which the tribunal in its impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 did not follow, leading to the need for elucidation of the law by the High Court.

The Court expressed the opinion that instead of framing substantial questions of law in the form of questions, it would be more beneficial if the facts are narrated briefly to make the substantial questions of law apparent. The Court acknowledged the need for clarification on the issue at hand. The appeal was formally admitted, and since the respondent was represented by learned counsel, service and issuance of notice of the appeal were dispensed with. The Court directed the advocate-on-record for the appellant to file an informal paper book by a specified date, serving a copy on the advocate-on-record for the respondent before the date of the appeal hearing. All other formalities were dispensed with, and the appeal was listed for a specific date. Additionally, the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with the interpretation of duty free advance license transfer, the liability of the transferee on a show cause notice, the applicability of a specific CESTAT ruling, and the necessity for elucidation of the law in the context of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court's detailed analysis and directions indicate a thorough consideration of the legal aspects involved in the case, aiming to provide clarity and resolution to the parties involved.