9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths as may be extended by competent authority. Even though the appellant have waived SCN, atleast adjudicating authority should have adhered to time limit as prescribed in section 110(ii) and proceeding should have been concluded within 6 months or 1 year if it is extended. However, the adjudication order was passed after almost 17 months. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 100 of 2011 - A/11619/2019 - Dated:- 19-8-2019 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. R. Subramanya, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. S. K. Shukla, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exporter under the provision of 108 of Customs Act, 1962. In the statement recorded, it was confirmed that the content of the documents VKGUY scheme having filed by the CHA on their behalf. He confirmed that there is no export benefit of VKGUY scheme for export of mustard/meal therefore, the appellant waive the SCN. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority ordered for confiscation of goods of ₹ 1,17,48,657/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 13 lacs. The penalty of ₹ 4 lacs was also imposed under Section 114(iii) of customs act, 1962. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Sh. R. Subhramanya Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory provision under section 110(ii), the Revenue was supposed to issue SCN within 6 months and further period of 6 months as may be extended by competent authority. Even though the appellant have waived SCN, atleast adjudicating authority should have adhered to time limit as prescribed in section 110(ii) and proceeding should have been concluded within 6 months or 1 year if it is extended. However, the adjudication order was passed after almost 17 months. The identical issue has been considered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shivshakti Trading Company (Supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court ruled as under: 4. The questions that arise for consideration: (i) Whether there could be any valid waiver of the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in realization of duty leviable on goods under reference and of fine and penalty amounts. Therefore, it is stated that SCN is to be issued to the owner of the goods or such person under Section 124 (a) of the Act within six months from the date of seizure or within the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Act. 17. The net result of the above discussion is that except where offences of serious nature or high stakes and/or legal questions are involved, it is permissible for the Customs Department to act upon the statement made under Section 108 of the Act waiving the right to be given a SCN under Section 124 (a) and have the adjudication proceedings expedited. Question (i) is answered accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The W.P. (C) 11641/2015 Page 12 of 13 explanation offered by the Respondents for not passing the adjudication order is not at all convincing. Even assuming that the Sole Proprietor of the Petitioner did not continue to appear before the Officer concerned, there was no justification for not completing the proceedings and passing an adjudication order within a reasonable time. The Petitioner is right in contending that it cannot be worse off for having waived the right to be given an SCN under Section 124 (a) of the Act. That waiver was plainly in the expectation of expeditious adjudication. However, as a result of the inaction of the Respondents, the Petitioner has been denied the release of the seized goods indefinitely. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 110A of the Act to seek provisional release of the goods. 25. In the present case, despite the waiver by the Petitioner of the right to be given an SCN in terms of Section 110 (2) of the Act, no adjudication order was passed for a period of one year after the seizure. The Petitioner could, therefore, not be bound by such waiver after the expiry of the time limit under Section 110 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances explained hereinabove, there was no justification for the Respondents to continue to detain the goods seized. 26. The Court accordingly directs that the goods seized be forthwith released unconditionally to the Petitioner. This will, however, not preclude the Respondents from proceeding un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
