Case Law Details
S and T Plastic Machines Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court recently addressed a writ petition filed by S and T Plastic Machines Private Limited against the Commissioner of Customs concerning a show cause notice dated October 30, 2024. The notice alleges that anti-dumping duty is applicable to the company’s imported goods because the Entry Inwards of the vessel occurred at 22:12 hours on December 22, 2023, which was after the e-gazette notification imposing the duty was digitally signed at 21:48:35 IST on the same day.
S and T Plastic Machines contested the show cause notice, arguing that the precise time of the actual uploading and publication of the anti-dumping duty notification in the e-gazette was not disclosed. The company claimed that despite requesting documentary evidence of this precise timing from the Customs authorities, their request was not fulfilled. The petitioner asserted that if the exact time of the notification’s publication were known, they would not be liable for the anti-dumping duty, as the vessel’s entry inwards, according to them, predates the notification.
The High Court, after hearing the arguments, noted that even according to the petitioner, the inward entry of the vessel was recorded at 22:12 hours on December 22, 2023, which is after the time mentioned in the show cause notice (21:48 hours) as the digital signing time of the notification. The court observed that the issue of the applicability of the anti-dumping duty can only be properly adjudicated after the Customs authorities consider the reply submitted by S and T Plastic Machines to the show cause notice.
The court reiterated the established legal principle that a show cause notice can typically be challenged only if it is issued without legal authority, lacks jurisdiction, or if the issue has already been definitively pre-determined. While the petitioner argued pre-determination, the court found insufficient evidence on record to support this claim at this stage. Acknowledging that the petitioner had already submitted a reply to the show cause notice on January 3, 2025, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific directive. The court instructed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Customs, to thoroughly consider the company’s reply on its merits and in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the court directed the authorities to grant S and T Plastic Machines a personal hearing before passing a final order on the matter. The court concluded that the grounds for challenging the show cause notice were not adequately substantiated by the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr.M. Santhanaraman, learned senior counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed challenging a show cause notice dated 30.10.2024 issued by the first respondent. The petitioner claims that the issue has been pre-determined by the first respondent. According to them, in the impugned show cause notice, the first respondent alleges that the time for Entry Inwards of the Vessel in respect of the Bills of Entries pertaining to the imported goods of the petitioner was at 22.12 hours on 22.12.2023 and that the e-gazette notification was digitally signed at 21.48.35 IST on 22.12.2023 (i.e., 24 minutes before Entry Inwards) and hence, the Anti-Dumping Duty is applicable to the case of the petitioner.
3. However, according to the petitioner, in the impugned show notice, the first respondent did not reveal the precise time of actual uploading and publication of the notification in the e-gazette. The petitioner also claims that despite the request made by them to the respondents seeking for documentary evidence revealing the precise time of actual uploading and publication of the notification in the e-gazette, the respondents have failed to comply with the same. Under those circumstances, the show cause notice has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
4. According to the petitioner, if the precise time of actual uploading and publication of the notification which levies the Anti-Dumping Duty is made known, the petitioner will not be liable to pay the Anti-Dumping Duty as claimed in the show cause notice as according to the petitioner, the entry inwards of the vessel will reveal that it is prior to the anti-dumping duty notification. The petitioner has in fact, sent a reply to the show cause notice on 03.01.2025 reiterating the contentions that have been raised in this writ petition. However, before the respondents could pass a final adjudication order, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned show cause notice on the ground that the respondents have pre-determined the issue by declaring that the time of uploading the notification as 48 hours on 22.12.2023. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the inward entry of the Vessel which carried the petitioner’s cargo was declared as 22.12 hours on 22.12.2023 i.e., after 21.48 hours, which according to the respondents, as seen from the impugned show cause notice, is the time of uploading of the notification levying Anti-Dumping Duty. The issue can be adjudicated only after the respondents consider the reply sent by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice.
5. Any show cause notice can be challenged only when the same is issued without authority under law or without jurisdiction or the issue has already been pre-determined. Even though the petitioner contends that the issue has been pre- determined by the respondents, this Court, with the available materials on record, is unable to come to such a conclusion. Admittedly, the petitioner has also sent a reply to the impugned show cause notice. Necessarily, the respondent will have to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and only thereafter, pass a final adjudication order. However, without allowing the respondents to pass a final adjudication order based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the show cause notice. Therefore, the only limited relief that can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the reply dated 03.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice dated 10.2024 on merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner. None of the grounds for challenging a show cause notice has been satisfied by the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the reply dated 03.01.2025 given by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.10.2024 on merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
