- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta & Ors. v. Kanhaiya Exports (P) Ltd. & Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant challenged the judgment of a learned single Judge dated March 16, 2001, seeking to set aside the order. The dispute arose from allegations of over-invoicing in exports by the writ petitioner, which led to a search on September 20, 1999, and seizure of documents including Shipping Bills and licenses issued under the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act. Show cause notices were issued concerning 10 consignments. The petitioner, a company engaged in exporting engineering goods, filed a writ petition in December 1999 challenging the search, seizure, and the Customs Authorities' inaction on assessment of 10 current Shipping Bills and freezing of bank accounts. Interim orders were passed directing the unfreezing of bank accounts and conditional return of documents pending show cause notices. The appellant contended that fraud was committed by declaring inflated export values, while the respondent maintained that exports were genuine and assessments, including issuance of DEPB licenses, had been completed for consignments other than the 10 in question. The matter involved interpretation of circulars related to assessment time limits and the release of seized documents and licenses.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the documents seized during the search, which are not connected to the show cause notices issued for 10 consignments, should be returned to the petitioner.
- Whether the Customs Authorities can retain import licenses and bank guarantees unrelated to the 10 consignments under show cause notices.
- Whether the assessment of the 10 consignments under show cause notices can be further delayed beyond the prescribed time limits set by Customs circulars and court directions.
- The procedural validity and effect of show cause notices issued after expiration of stipulated time periods under Customs circulars.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The petitioner committed fraud by declaring higher export values than actual, justifying issuance of show cause notices.
- Show cause notices can be issued when export values are wrongly declared or exemptions granted contrary to law.
- The petitioner cannot claim benefit of final assessment and export completion to avoid scrutiny.
Respondent's Arguments
- The petitioner legitimately exported welding electrodes and obtained remittances and DEPB licenses for exports.
- Search and seizure included documents not related to the 10 consignments under scrutiny.
- Final assessments and issuance of licenses for consignments other than the 10 in question have been completed with no pending appeals.
- Retention of licenses and bank guarantees unrelated to the 10 consignments is unjustified.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 105 ELT 258 (Madras High Court) | Interpreting Circular No. 69/97 regarding time limits for Customs investigations and inquiries. | The Court relied on this precedent to hold that no investigation or inquiry can be made by Customs Authority after expiry of the prescribed time period. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the facts and the relevant Customs circulars governing the time limits for completing assessments and issuing show cause notices. It noted that only in respect of 10 consignments were show cause notices issued, while assessments and issuance of licenses for other consignments had been finalized with no pending appeals. The Court emphasized that documents and licenses unrelated to the 10 consignments should be returned promptly as their retention lacked justification. It underscored that Circular No. 69/97 and its amendments set strict time limits for Customs inquiries, and after expiry, the declared export value is deemed accepted, barring further investigation. The Court found that the department had failed to complete the assessment of the 10 consignments within the stipulated time despite court directions, and thus no further extensions should be granted. The Court directed completion of assessment within four weeks and return of one copy of the Shipping Bills to facilitate the petitioner’s response. The Court also upheld the release of the bank guarantee, since it related to licenses not connected to the disputed consignments.
Holding and Implications
The appeal and application are disposed of with the following directions:
- All seized documents unrelated to the 10 consignments under show cause notices are to be returned within 10 days.
- One original copy of each of the 10 Shipping Bills must be returned within 10 days to the petitioner to enable filing of replies within two weeks, followed by completion of assessment within two weeks thereafter.
- The bank guarantee furnished for import licenses unrelated to the 10 consignments was rightly released by the learned single Judge.
The decision directly affects the parties by clarifying the limits of Customs’ authority to retain documents and licenses beyond prescribed time limits and affirms procedural safeguards for exporters. No new legal precedent beyond the interpretation of existing circulars and procedural fairness was established.
Y.R Meena J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned single Judge dated March 16, 2001. The appellant prayed that the order in appeal is bad in law and that should be set aside.
2. On secret information and on certain investigations it was appeared to the department that writ petitioner was indulging in over invoicing in his exports goods. Therefore, there was search conducted on 20th September, 1999 and in the search the documents referred in the writ were seized. Show cause notice was issued in respect of 10 consignments.
3. The writ application was filed in December, 1999 challenging search and seizure of documents, past Shipping Bills and Licences issued under Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act by licensing authority pertaining to past exports which were mentioned in annexure “B”, in the writ further direction sought on the inaction of the Customs Authorities in making assessment in respect of 10 current Shipping Bills and freezing of bank account by the Customs Authorities.
4. The petitioner/respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 2/6, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-700 020. The petitioner/respondent carries on business of export of engineering goods such as Steel Welding Electrodes. The petitioner/respondent exports goods to various countries where the product of the petitioner is in huge demand.
5. The Government of India published Export & Import Policy for the years 1997-2002. Under the said policy, a scheme called Duty Exemption scheme was notified. Under the said scheme duty free licences are issued. Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEFB) was provided as a part of the Duty Exemption Scheme. Under the scheme on export of notified item, the exporter is entitled to credit at a specified rate against the export product. The duty credit under the Scheme is calculated by taking into account the value of exported goods.
6. The DEPB is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance. The DEPB under the said policy may be issued either on post export basis of on pre-export basis.
7. Learned counsel for Revenue has submitted that petitioner has played fraud in exports, by declaring much higher value of the goods exported. In his written note he also referred some cases where Their Lordships have taken the view that show cause notices can be issued, where the assessee has wrongly declared the export value or the assistant collector has granted an exemption contrary to law. He further submitted that the petitioner/respondent couldn't take the benefit that the consignments are already exported and assessment finally made.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that between March 1999 and September 1999 the petitioner/respondent has made several exports of welding electrodes made as stainless steel to Dubai, Hong Kong etc. The goods were examined and 1st export orders were issued by customs Authorities. For the export the petitioner have obtained remittances from the foreign buyer and for part of the export DEPB licences have already been issued.
9. In between 7th September. 1999 and 10th September, 1999 the petitioner/respondent has exported some consignments and 10 Shipping Bills have been submitted. The petitioner shipped the goods through M/s. Adds Confereight Pvt. Ltd. On 20th September, 1999 there was a search and seizure and aforesaid documents including the DEPB and import licences are seized.
10. That search and seizure was challenged in a writ petition and learned single Judge on January 27, 2000 ordered the bank accounts should be unfrozen with immediate effect. Regarding return of documents, the direction was given, the documents should be returned unless a show cause notice issued latest by 31.3.2000 Similarly the 10 shipping Bills must also not be proceeded unless the departments make up his mind to proceed against the petitioner on the ground of fraud.
11. On 21.11.2000 in the open Court learned counsel, for the Customs Authorities, contended that the documents, which are not connected with the show cause notice, can be released, but the petitioner should approach to the appropriate authority.
12. He further submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition the appellant/respondent has not contested the documents and Shipping Bills regarding exports, other than 10 consignments, in which show cause notices have been issued.
13. He further submitted that all the Shipping Bills were finally assessed after provisional assessment and adjudication orders were passed which became final. Time to prefer an appeal and/or revision against those final assessments had expired long back.
14. Notification No. 69/97 provides that if the show cause notice was not issued within a period of 30 days, the value declared by exporter shall be deemed to have been accepted. This notification was amended and period of 30 days can be extended to 90 days by the Commissioner of Customs, if any particular case the circumstances requires further time for completion of the final assessment. This circular 69/97 has bee considered by the Madras High Court in 105 ELT 258, and held that no investigation or inquiry can be made by Customs Authority after expiry of time period mentioned in the notification, circular No. 69/97.
15. Even in cases of 10 Shipping Bills the petitioner has filed 4 copies of Shipping Bills. They are marked “Original” “Duplicate”, “Triplicate” and “Qua-duplicate”. Three copies can be retained by the Custom Department for record and one copy can be returned to petitioner which can be utilized for purposes such as reply to show cause notices and making application to licensing authority for DEPB or license.
16. It is also brought to our notice by learned counsel that as the period of the licenses was expiring, those licences were in the custody of customs authority and after expiry the period for which they are issued those licenses had no value. After expiry of period of those licenses, those licenses cannot be used for import. Therefore, petitioner obtained those licenses on furnishing the bank guarantee. Those licenses are already used by the petitioner.
17. These licenses have nothing to do with the show cause notices in 10 consignments, there is no justification for retaining those licenses and bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner/respondent, has rightly been released by learned single Judge.
18. Out of 159 consignments exported by petitioner, only in case of 10 consignment show cause notices have been issued. In some cases of consignments exported earlier, even the licenses were issued. Those licenses cannot be questioned and they cannot be retained by the Department.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner/respondent is an exporter and on his exports he got the benefit of duty exemption scheme. In a search conducted by the department certain documents were seized such as past Shipping Bills, licenses issued under Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act and some other documents, which are not connected with the 10 consignments, in which the show cause notice has been issued. Learned single Judge in interim order dated January 17, 2000 has already directed that the Department can issue the show cause, if Department so desire, latest by 31.3.2000 If no show cause notice issued, return those documents.
20. Admittedly, no such show cause notice has been issued for any other consignments except 10 Shipping Bills. On 20.11.2000 in Court, even Counsel for the department has assured that the documents, which are not connected with the show cause notices, can be released, in case the petitioner/respondent approached to the authority concerned, but documents even which are not connected with show cause notices are not released/returned.
21. Whether the documents, which are seized during search, should be released/returned. For that some circulars are necessary to be referred. Circular No. 69/97 issued on 8.12.1997 provides that in case the investigation or enquiry is not completed to find out the market value, than the PMV shall be deemed to have been accepted. Thereafter this was further amended on 22.10.1998 and power was given to the Commissioner in case the enquires if not completed within 30 days, the period of enquiry can be extended up to 90 days. Then 3rd circular was issued on 11.5.1999 providing that in case there is a doubt regarding correct value of the exported goods, the goods be permitted for export without enquiry but in that case a provisional assessment should be made. Thereafter on enquiry, the final assessment should be made for the purpose of duty free import licence.
22. Herein case in hand no show cause notice has been issued, till today in cases of 149 consignments, only in cases of 10 consignments show cause notices have been issued. In respect of 149 cases, the final assessment has been made, even in some cases licenses are also issued.
23. The search and seizure took place on 20th September, 1999 that has been challenged and when the documents which have nothing to do with the show cause notices, they should be released/returned forthwith. We direct that those documents, which are not connected with the show cause notice already issued, shall be returned within 10 days to petitioners from the date of communication of this order.
24. As regards 10 consignments, in which the showcause notice has been issued long back in 1999, but enquiry has not been completed though the time limit given in circulars expired long back, even the time limit given by the Court in the impugned judgment to complete the final assessment by 25th May, 2001 has also expired.
25. After circular dated 11.5.1999, the Department may complete the enquiry within reasonable time, but in spite of direction of the Court enquiry has not been completed. Considering the spirit behind the circulars referred above no further time should be allowed for completion of the assessment.
26. However, in the interest of Justice we further direct that assessment in case of 10 consignments be completed within 4 weeks from the date of this order and as the department has 4 copies of the Shipping Bills, one copy of the Shipping Bill be return to the assessee so that he can file reply to show cause notices, if reply has not been filed. Reply if not filed that be filed within 2 weeks from the date of return of copies of 10 Shipping Bills. One copy of the each 10 Shipping Bills be returned within 10 days from the date of Communication of this order. The Department is also directed to complete the assessment within two weeks from the date of filing of reply by petitioner.
27. The department has also challenged the direction of the learned single Judge that he should not release the bank guarantee. As discussed above when the show cause notice has been issued only in case of 10 consignments the other documents including the import licence have nothing to do with those 10 consignments. Thus there is no Justification for renewal of the bank guarantee, which was furnished for obtaining the import licences, when the seizure of those import licenses was illegal. There is no justification for renewal of such bank guarantee, which was furnished for obtaining the licenses seized during search. As Customs authority has no Justification to retain those import licenses, which were issued on account of earlier exports made by the petitioner/respondent and licenses have nothing to do with the show cause notice. The Bank guarantee has rightly been released.
To sum up
1. All the documents, which are seized during search (except which are connected with the show cause notice in cases of 10 consignments), they be returned to the respondent within 10 days including import licenses from the date of communication of this order.
2. 1 original copy out of 4 copies in the cases of each 10 Shipping Bills be returned to the petitioner/respondent within 10 days from the date of this order and on receipt of the copy of Shipping Bills, if reply has not already been filed, reply be filed within 2 weeks and assessment be made within 2 weeks thereafter.
3. The bank guarantee has rightly been released by learned single Judge.
The appeal and application stands disposed with the above directions.
M.K Basil, J.—I agree.
Appeal disposed of
Alert