Delayed Show Cause notice by Customs — Is the Owner of goods still liable for redemption fine, penalty or interest? Delhi HC answers
The Court considered how the timing of a Show Cause Notice by Customs Department impacts the owner’s liability.
The Court considered how the timing of a Show Cause Notice by Customs Department impacts the owner’s liability.
“Personal hearing cannot be demanded as a matter of right, unless specifically mandated by statute or rules. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a straitjacket formula; their application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case”
Naman Broadcasting amongst others was alleged to contravene the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 by using digital platforms to mislead the investors. It was alleged that the price and volume of the scrip was manipulated through a coordinated scheme involving dissemination of misleading information and structured trades among connected entities.
“The only question before CIC was whether ‘information’, as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been denied mala fide, or incorrect, incomplete or misleading information has been knowingly furnished. The impugned order instead expresses policy prescriptions, which are beyond the remit of CIC.”
“Adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the classification proposed in the show-cause notice by classifying the product under a classification which was neither claimed by the appellant nor was proposed in the said notice.”
The petitioner, Purple Products, imported Tin Ingots manufactured from Malaysia, with a valid Certificate of Origin and based on such certification, it claimed and availed benefits under Customs Exemption Notification No. 46 of 2011, dated 1-6-2011, from time to time.
“The right to know and to effectively respond to the charges has been recognized as a fundamental feature of any administrative adjudicatory process. It is a fundamental principle of fairness that a party should have prior notice of the case against him and an opportunity to properly respond to the same”
The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications issued which empowered the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices.
A forensic audit was conducted by Grant Thornton LLP at the request of the respondent-bank. The audit led to the withdrawal of the ‘red flagging’ of the company’s account.
The Court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable, as established in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.
The Court stated that since the only allegation against the entity was that it was found to be non-existent, it was at liberty to furnish documents and material to support its contention that it continues to be a valid tax entity.
The Delhi High Court emphasised that if the relevant documents are not provided to a party, the whole procedure of issuance of Show Cause Notice would be reduced to an empty formality.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, who was expected to maintain decorum placed comments in the chat box during the proceedings via video conferencing against the sitting judge and the proceedings being taken up by the Court.
The High Court found the cause of action to be untenable as the petitioners were already accused in a similar case.
By the interim order, the Supreme Court had restrained the NCDRC from taking any coercive steps against Ireo Grace Realtech
“The opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice was therefore a mere eye wash, and nothing more.”
The NCLAT held that the CoC had the jurisdiction to decide on liquidation as per Section 33(2) and its explanation, even before completing all steps for resolution.
Allahabad High Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 80
“The notice is required to state the grounds necessitating the action and the penalty proposed specifically and unambiguously and is also required to adhere to the principles of natural justice”