Extension Of Time To Adjudicate SCN U/S 28 Customs Act Need Not Be Communicated To Importer: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.Section 28(9) sets time limits for the Customs officer to finalize demand proceedings after issuing SCN for unpaid/short-levied duty, requiring determination within...
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Section 28(9) sets time limits for the Customs officer to finalize demand proceedings after issuing SCN for unpaid/short-levied duty, requiring determination within six months for normal cases (S. 28(1)) and one year for specific cases (S. 28(4)). The provision allows extensions of such period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,
“usually, the Customs Department ought to intimate any extension which is granted, to the parties concerned. But this would not be a fatal error in the present case as the communication of the same is not mandated in the provision, i.e., Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
In the case at hand, Petitioner had challenged “delayed” adjudication of the SCN issued to it in July 2023 in connection with the preferential rate of duty availed for import of Aluminium foil.
According to the Petitioner, the SCN did not proceed for one year and notice for personal hearing was finally received on 10th October, 2024 which, according to the Petitioner, was beyond the prescribed period of one year under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act.
The Department on the other hand submitted that repeated notices were issued to the Petitioner to file a reply to the SCN and to attend the personal hearing, which the Petitioner has failed to do and, it is only after a lapse of the one year period, that the Petitioner challenged the SCN.
It further claimed that the period for adjudication of the SCN was extended by the Commissioner of Customs.
Petitioner however argued that the extension, if any, was not intimated to it.
In this regard the High Court referred to Section 28(9) and observed, “there is no stipulation that the same extension order ought to be communicated.”
It contrasted this position with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which stipulates that the person from whom the goods were seized has to be informed before the expiry of the period, if a further extension is to be given.
As such, the Court refused to interfere in the matter.
Appearance: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with Mr. Harsh Singhal & Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14733/2024