Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2492
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J
MAGNA DEALERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) – Respondent
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/261/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Adv.
Procedural compliance in customs law is crucial; awakening the lapse due to non-adherence to statutory timelines invalidates subsequent notices.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 18, 28 - Writ petition challenging show cause and order in original - The petitioner imported consignments and filed bills for valuation - A show cause notice was issued after final assessment, which led to disputes regarding the adequacy of procedural compliance - Initial show cause notice was set aside for premature issuance, and subsequent events complicated the assessment process. (Paras 5, 8, 10)
(B) Procedural fairness - The court emphasized the need for proper instruction and communication in legal proceedings, finding deficiencies in the respondent's handling of the case. The delay and procedural irregularities necessitated further explanation from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to challenge a show cause issued post-final assessment based on importation activities that had evolved complicated procedural issues. The petitioner argues against procedural lapses following a prior remand by CESTAT.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the earlier show cause procedures did not comply with statutory timelines, thus asserting the necessity for legal scrutiny of the impugned orders.
Issues: The core issue was whether the show cause notice was validly issued after the final assessment under statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discerned that the issuance of show cause outside the mandated period under Section 28(9) renders the procedural action erroneous, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance.
Result: Writ petition to be heard with interim stay on the impugned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. implications of procedural fairness in administrative law. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 2. inadequate communication and responsibility in legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. show cause notices must comply with statutory timelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 1st July, 2025 Appearance :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.
…for the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee , Adv.
…for the respondent
1. Pursuant to the order dated 22nd May, 2025, an explanation has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Port) as regards the circumstances, under which the copy of the writ petition was not made over to the learned Advocate though the writ petition was served on the respondent on 16th April, 2024.
2. Perused the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Port) affirmed on 13th June, 2025. The explanation provided is not found to be proper. It is unfortunate that in paragraph 2(viii) of the affidavit, a statement has been made which has been affirmed as true to knowledge that since the ‘hard copies’ of the writ petition was not available in the department, instruction could not be forwarded to the counsel. This Court fails to understand the aforesaid explanation having regard to the fact that in paragraph 2 sub-paragraph (i), receipt of hard copy of the writ petition has been acknowledged.
3. It is also clear from the aforesaid affidavit that the writ petition was duly scanned by the department of the respondent and was received by the legal section of the respondent. The aforesaid would clearly demonstrate that the deponent had attempted to somehow wriggle out his responsibility in affording adequate instruction to the counsel.
4. Though the aforesaid explanation is found to be not proper, however, on the prayer of Ms. Mukherjee, learned Advocate representing the respondent, I permit the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Port) to file an appropriate explanation especially as regards the failure to communicate with the counsel. Such explanation in the form of an affidavit must be filed on or before the matter is taken up next. The aforesaid explanation is necessary to identify the person responsible for the latches.
5. On merits of the petition the writ petitioner seeks to not only challenge the show cause dated 6th November, 2015 but also the order in original dated 29th November, 2017, as well as the order in original dated 6th February, 2025. The matter has a chequered history. Between 2008 and 2012 the petitioner had imported 43 consignments of Slack Wax with Residue Wax and filed bills of entry for home consumption under Section 18 of the Customs Act , 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for valuation purpose.
6. In the interregnum on the basis of the discovery made on investigation by DRI, a show cause cum demand notice under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the said Act was issued on 10th July, 2013. Challenging the said show cause notice a writ petition was filed on the ground that the show cause notice could not have been issued when no final order for assessment had been passed under Section 18 of the said Act. Admittedly, a final order of assessment under Section 28 of the said Act was issued on 15th September, 2014. Although, the petitioner did not succeed before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10th November, 2014 taking notice of the fact that the petitioner accepts the final order of assessment, set aside the show cause dated 10th July, 2013. Following the above a show cause notice dated 6th November, 2015 was issued. On this occasion since, the show cause was issued subsequent to the final order of assessment the petitioner participated in such proceeding though raising a preliminary objection as regards its maintainability. In such proceeding by an order dated 17th October, 2017 the adjudicating authority refused the request of the petitioner for
