SIBCO OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Several interesting issues have been sought to be raised, particularly as to the propriety of the Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue a notification to deliberately negate the effect of a considered judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner company brought in certain import consignments prior to 2013. The goods were permitted to be brought in upon assessment of the duty at the ports of entry by the concerned Commissioner of Customs (Import). Apparently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence subsequently discovered that the goods imported by the petitioners may have been of Chinese origin but were routed into the country from Malaysia to avoid the anti -dumping duty that the import of Chinese goods would have attracted. On such perception, a notice was issued by the DRI to the petitioners on June 3, 2015 under Ss. 124 and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, such show cause notice required the petitioner company to furnish its reply to some other authority or office within 30 days of the receipt thereof.

(2.) The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue the notice and, indeed, several matters pertaining to the very issuance thereof. The relevant petition, WP 24692(W) of 2015, was disposed of by an order of October 6, 2015. The order recorded that the main thrust of the previous petition was that the notice dated June 3, 2015 was without jurisdiction as it had not been issued by a proper officer. On such aspect of the matter, the Revenue relied on copies of notifications dated March 7, 2002 and July 6, 2011 by which certain officers in the DRI were indicated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as proper officers for the purpose of Sec. 28 of the said Act. The Court repelled the jurisdictional challenge on the basis of the notification of July 6, 2011 and directed as follows:

(3.) It is now the contention of the petitioners that at the time that the order of October 6, 2015 was passed on the previous petition, a circular of December 11, 2014 had not been brought to the notice of the court. It is submitted that Paragraph 4 of the circular of December 11, 2014 is of some significance in the matter.