P.R. MATHAIYAN Vs. CC, JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS early hearing application has been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner extending the time limit for issue of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) for issue of show cause notice by a period of six months. The early hearing application is allowed in view of the fact that appeal itself would become infructuous if it is not considered before 5 -1 -2011.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that export consignments of M/s. Ramya Enterprises under two shipping bills dated 27 -1 -10 were kept on hold. The commodity declared was quartz powder. On chemical test they were found to be potassium chloride (Muriate of Potash) fertiliser grade. Potassium chloride is a restricted commodity for export. During the course of investigation 500 MT of potassium chloride which had already been exported was also called back which was also found to be potassium chloride. According to the Revenue the investigations revealed that even though the shipping bills were filed in the name of M/s. Ramya Enterprises, the MOP was procured by a consortium led by the appellant herein and Shri Girish Bhatia. A show cause notice was issued for extension and other than the appellant herein other noticees did not reply to the show cause notice. The appellant in his reply to the show cause notice submitted that he was in no way concerned with export of MOP and he had only financed and had lent money. He also opposed the extension of time limit. However he did not appear for personal hearing. Thereafter the Commissioner has passed the impugned order and the grounds on which period has been extended is that the following issues are required to be investigated thoroughly and this could not be done within the period of six months provided under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) HEARD both the sides. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was being harassed by the investigating agency and the extension of time would mean further harassment of the appellant. However he was not able to show how prejudice would be caused to him by extension of time for issue of show cause notice which is mainly relating to seized goods. As regards penalty on the appellant and other consequences, the same would not be affected at all. It is the claim of the appellant that he is not the owner of the goods and therefore extension of time for issue of show cause notice in respect of seized goods cannot cause any prejudice to him if his claim that he is not the owner is correct. Under these circumstances, we find that the appellant has not been able to make out a case at all in his favour and has not been able to show why the order passed by the Commissioner has to be set aside. Under these circumstances, we find that appeal has no merit and accordingly the same has to be rejected.