New Era Trading Pvt Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Customs Export (Delhi High court)
From a reading of the SCN, it appears that the petitioner had filed 203 shipping bills declaring FOB value of Rs.102,25,88,997/- for purported export to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Ethiopia under SFMS. All these shipping bills were to be verified by the Department by cross-checking with the other concerned Departments/Officers. Similarly, during the course of investigation, TR-I/TR-II copies of the shipping bills were to be verified. As the port of discharge and the country of destination were found manually changed, further investigation was done and information was sought from Additional Commissioner of Customs (Exports), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The signatures of the Officer endorsed on the shipping bills as well as the customs stamps, etc. were to be verified. This was time consuming process and thus prima facie we do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner that the SCN was barred by time. It goes without saying that investigation to unearth fraud and/or collusion with respect to as many as 203 shipping bills, with the involvement of several Departments cannot be completed overnight. Looking at the allegations in the SCN and the details of the investigations carried out as well as the provisions of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, we are of the prima facie view that the SCN is not time barred.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied on the Section 28AAA of the Customs Act to contend that the SCN is not time barred inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and wilful mis-statements in claiming the benefits under the Scheme. Prima facie we find merit in the contention of the respondent.
Since the matter is at the stage of SCN, which in our prima facie opinion is not time barred, especially looking to Section 28 AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the facts of this case. We are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to file a reply in response to the SCN and a decision shall be taken thereafter by the respondents, in accordance with law and taking into account the stand of the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to raise the grounds taken in the present petition in reply to the SCN including the objection to the jurisdiction, power and authority of the concerned respondent to issue the SCN which is one of the grounds urged in the petition.
Respondents are hereby directed to take a decision pursuant to the SCN dated 24.01.2020 in accordance with law, Rules, Regulations and Government Policies applicable to the facts of the case and also keeping in mind the evidence on record, as early as possible and practicable. The issues raised herein with respect to the SCN being time barred, applicability of Section 28 (1) or Section 28AAA as well as the jurisdiction of the concerned authority are also left open to be decided by the concerned respondent.
