Prolonged delay in adjudicating Show Cause Notices violates principles of justice, warranting their quashing.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. RAY, J.

“And then one day you find

Ten years have got behind you

No-one told you when to run

You missed the starting gun …...”

-Pink Floyd, Time (The Dark Side of the Moon)

1. The short issue that calls for determination by this Court is whether a show cause notice issued by the Customs Department, which has remained unadjudicated for a long period of time, in excess of ten years, in the present case, should be quashed only on such ground ?

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa for learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra for the Petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the Respondent No. 2.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent No. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, as the issue involved is very short.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

4.1 The Petitioner is a registered company, inter alia engaged in the manufacture and export of dyes and chemicals. The Petitioner undertook the export of “Synthetic organic dyes Acid Black-210” under two shipping bills Nos.:1393015 & 1393016, both dated 14.09.2009, from the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Ahmedabad. The Petitioners availed the benefits of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB).

4.2 A Search was carried out by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 15.09.2009, at the factory and the registered office premises of the Petitioners, suggesting that the said exports involved mis-declaration of the products. Samples were obtained by the DRI and sent for testing.

4.3 The Chemical Examiner, in his report dated 29.09.2009, mentioned that, even when these products are clearly black- coloured powder in the form of “synthetic organic dye acids”, the samples of one of the shipping bill No. 1393015, dated 14.09.2009 would be “Acid Black 234” and not “Acid Black 210” as declared by them. Also, it was stated that the other shipping bill No. 1393016, clearly contained “Acid Black 210”, as declared by the Petitioners.

4.4 Based on the investigation, the office of the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.03.2010, stating that the Petitioners wrongfully availed the benefits under the DEPB Scheme and thus, proposed the confiscation of goods under the shipping bill No. 1393015, dated 14.09.2009.

4.5 The Petitioners have deposited Rs.75,00,000/- as a pre- deposit amount towards the protection of revenue interest, as directed by the DRI authorities.

4.6 DRI issued the second Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2011 under Section 111(o) read with Section 28 of the Customs Act,1962, for the past exports of the product “Acid Black 210”, and suggested that, all such exports were based on mis-declaration and accordingly sought the recovery of the benefits availed. The demand for recovery of the entire DEPB availed for period commencing from April 2005 to April 2010, i.e., Rs.1,23,31,774/-, with interest and penalties.

4.7. A Show Cause Notice dated 13.04.2010 was issued upon the petitioners by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad, to take an action in this regard and impose penalties, under the provisions for the alleged mis-declaration.

4.8. The Petitioners filed their reply dated 15.06.2012 and clarified that there has been no mis-declaration by them, and further mentioned that the “Acid Black 210” and “Acid Black 234” are similar and identical products, and there is no difference in their chemical composition or structure.

4.9. The Petitioners filed additional written submissions before the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad, during the adjudication of these matters on 14.03.2013. In the order dated 10.07.2013, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade agreed with the contention of the Petitioners and held that, the DE