The Delhi High Court has held that placing of matter in the call book by customs department would not justify non-adjudication of notice for 15 years.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the show cause notice which was issued way back in 2008, due to repeated placing in the call book has not been adjudicated for so long. Repeated placing and removing from the call book is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of the SCN for about 15 years.
The Petitioners/assessee are engaged in the business of importing and trading of various types of papers and paper board including newsprint and lightweight coated paper.
The DRI suspected mis- declaration and undervaluation in the import of subject goods by certain importers, who were alleged to be working with various ‘Registrar of Newspapers in India’ certificate holders (RNI holders). As per the DRI one Mr. Prakash Garg alleged to be the owner/controller of the Petitioners i.e., M/s Vijay Enterprises and M/s Salwan International Paper Pvt. Ltd., as also M/s. Newsprint Trading, was involved in the said mis- declaration and undervaluation.
The DRI had also received information that the importers were violating the user conditions specified under ITC (HS) & Customs Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1st March, 2002 in respect of import of ‘Newsprint & Light Weight Coated Paper’ (hereinafter “LWC”), by diverting the said goods to the local market instead of using the same for printing of newspapers & magazines.
The DRI conducted certain searches at the premises of Mr. Prakash Garg, his firms, including the Petitioners. It is alleged by the Petitioners that during the investigation, the Petitioner was forced to submit a Bank Guarantee towards provisional release of consignment.
The SCN was issued by the DRI, upon completion of its investigation, holding the Petitioners, inter alia, jointly and severally liable for payment of differential duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act.
After issuance of the impugned SCN, the Petitioners had made several request vide letters dated 3rd February, 2010 and 5th February, 2010 with the concerned assessing officer to provide all the ‘relied upon documents’ (RUDs). However, the Petitioners were not provided with all the RUDs. It is stated that between 15th January, 2010 and 17th February, 2012, the Petitioners did not receive any communication from the Department.
The Petitioners were granted personal hearing on 27th February, 2012 as also on 16th March, 2012 and the Petitioners are stated to have reiterated the request to provide all RUDs. It is stated that between 17th August, 2012 and 22nd April, 2014, the Petitioner again did not receive any communication from the concerned assessing officer. A personal hearing was granted to the Petitioners on 13th May, 2014.
The court while allowing the petition held that SCN deserves to be quashed and is accordingly set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijay Enterprises & Anr. Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5809/2024
Date: 10th January, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Tarun Gulati, Senior Advocate with Prem Ranjan Kumar and Ms. Shruti, Advocates
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr. Suhani Mathur and Shivang Chawla
