9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962 which has been extended by letter dt. 16.03.2021 that the same has been extended up to 30.06.2021 which is against the law as six months period was expired on 01.01.2021 of the seizure and within six months till 01.01.2021, the Revenue was required to pass an order recording reasons in writing for extension of time. No such order is placed on record - the show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation, therefore, the show cause notice for absolute confiscation is not sustainable. Accordingly, the goods are required to be released to the appellant after examination thereof to find out whether same are fit for human consumption or not and the demurrage and detention charges are required to be waived. The two parallel proceedings cannot continue together. As the show cause notice dated 30.06.2021 has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act, therefore, the show cause notice dt. 30.06.2021 is barred by limitation and the goods are required to be returned to the appellant. As the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2021 is not the subject matter of the appeal, therefore, the Revenue is at liberty to adjudicate the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or re-consideration of the request for provisional release of the goods with certain observations. The order of this Tribunal was challenged by the respondent before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, wherein it has been held that as adjudicating authority has passed the order in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal, therefore, the appeals filed by the respondent have become infructuous and were disposed off as infructuous. In remand proceedings, the goods were again absolutely confiscated, therefore, the appellants are before me. 5. The Revenue raised the preliminary objection that the Single Member Bench of this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue as issue involved relates to classification and rate of duty. On going through the papers placed before me, the only issue before me is that whether the impugned goods can be released provisionally or not? Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue is turned down. Further, the Revenue heavily relied on the order dated 05.03.2021 which is an ex-parte order, wherein the Revenue stated that this Tribunal has decided a case which is beyond its jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary aspect u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the Appeal No. C/60421/2021 , the ld. Counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: - 7.1 It is a submission that the investigation by SIIB which concluded that country of origin is Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The said investigation report of SIIB has not been challenged by the Revenue, hence, the order of release of goods has attained finality as the same has not been challenged. 7.2 Further, it is submitted that the impugned goods after clearance by Customs are no longer imported goods. Therefore, the goods cannot be confiscated or seized. 7.3 He further submitted that as during the arguments, the Revenue has submitted that a show cause notice has been issued to the appellant on 16.11.2021 demanding duty @200% under CTH 98060000 inter-alia on the goods imported vide bill of entry no. 6596563 dt. 23.01.2020. It was the contention of the Revenue that the goods imported vide the above said bill of entry are of Pakistan origin as all the containers bearing same container numbers and same seal numbers were transshipped from Pakistan to UAE and then from UAE to India. The ld. Counsel objected the contention of Revenue and submitted that container numbers do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regulates import and prohibition of import of plants and plant products into India. The impugned goods having being imported in violation of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 are prohibited which can affect the power bio-security of the nation. He also relied on the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court in the cases of Sheikh Mohd Omer vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta 1983 (13) ELT 1439 (SC) and Omprakash Bhatia vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC). He further submitted that provisional release of the goods is not mandatory for absolute all the prohibited goods in nature. 9. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 10. As the facts of the case in both the appeals are little bit different, therefore, both the appeals are decided separately as follows: 11. Appeal No. C/60421/2021 As in this case, the goods were cleared for human consumption after the investigation conducted by SIIB who observed that the goods in question were originated from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the goods were allowed to be cleared. The said order has attained finality and has not been challenged by the Revenue. Further, the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 read with Notification No. 450/61/2020-Cus.IV (Part 1) dated 30.09.2020. As per Section 6 ibid, the time limit was extended to 30.09.2020 and the same was extended till 31.12.2020 vide Notification cited herein above. The time limit for issuance of the show cause notice of six months falls on 01.01.2021, therefore, the provisions relied upon by the Revenue of Section 6 of Taxation Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 read with Notification No. 450/61/2020-Cus.IV (Part 1) dated 30.09.2020 are of no help. Further, in the show cause notice, it has been mentioned that the show cause notice was required to be issued on 17.03.2021 under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 which has been extended by letter dt. 16.03.2021 that the same has been extended up to 30.06.2021 which is against the law as six months period was expired on 01.01.2021 of the seizure and within six months till 01.01.2021, the Revenue was required to pass an order recording reasons in writing for extension of time. No such order is placed on record. In that circumstance, I hold that the show cause notice issued to the appellant is barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
