Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

d) Till disposal of petition, grant a stay against adjudication of Show Cause Notice No. F. No.DRI/MZU/D/25/2001 dated September 2003:"

4. Case of the Petitioners:

Petitioners, by the present Petition, challenge the Show Cause Notice issued vide File No. DRI/MZU/D/25/Esjaypee/2001 dated 24.09.2003 ('the impugned SCN') and Personal hearing Notice bearing F No.S/10-19/2002 Adj. Part-III dated 19.06.2024 ('PH Notice dated 19.06.2024').

The case as set out by the Petitioners in the Petition, inter alia, is that the Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company whereas the Petitioner No.2 is the Director; that the Respondent No.2 in its investigation alleged undervaluation of import of cloves of foreign origin, declared value of which was lower than prevailing international prices; that during the investigation, the office and residential premises of one Shri Bhumish Shah working as an Indenting Agent were searched and Indian currency as well as some incriminating documents were seized; that Shri Bhumish Shah deposed before the Respondent No.2 stating that he had acted on behalf of the Petitioners in respect of import of spices and that the consignments of cloves were regularly under-declared and 4/31 WP-3793.24.DOC differential amounts were paid by the importers; that the Respondent No.2 recorded statement of Petitioner No.2 to inquire about import of Star Aniseed; that the Petitioners lodged a letter dated 23.08.2001 with Respondent No.2 confirming that the value declared by the Petitioners in import consignment specified in the letter to be true and correct and that was actually the price at which the Customs had assessed the consignment based on landing cost and based on value declared; that the trend of questioning on 13.08.2001 was predominantly focused on forcing the Petitioners to confess that there has been undervaluation; that on the basis of the investigation, the impugned SCN was issued to said Bhumish Shah and the Petitioners, proposing to reject the declared value, confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act; demand of differential custom duty as well as penalty under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act on the Petitioners; that vide Notification No.37/2003 CUS (NT) dated 03.06.2003 the impugned SCN was assigned to the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) for adjudication;

39. Another aspect that persuades us is that the reasons the Respondents gave for the delayed adjudication are unjustifiable, as Respondent No.2 in his affidavit dated 05.09.2024 in the list of dates and events at Sr. No.XIX at 11 (2024) 7 SCC 433 30/31 WP-3793.24.DOC page 136 has submitted as follows:- "17.05.2024: DRI informed about that the case file of M/s. Esjaypee Impex was reconstructed and the matter was taken up for adjudication." This suggests that the files were also not traceable with the Respondents for a long time, and the matter was sought to be revived only by reconstructing the files.

31/31 WP-3793.24.DOC

42. From the above facts and circumstances, we find that the impugned No.DRI/MZU/D/25/Esjaypee/2001 dated 24.09.2003 and Personal hearing Notice bearing F No. S/10- 19/2002 Adj. Part-III dated 19.06.2024, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

43. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice No. DRI/MZU/D/25/Esjaypee/2001 dated 24.09.2003 and the Personal Hearing Notice bearing F No. S/10-19/2002 Adj. Part-III dated 19.06.2024 and restrain the Respondents from proceeding further in the matter.