COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. SWEES GEMS AND JEWELLERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law framed in these two appeals are common; it is as follows:

(2.) In these two appeals, the respondents imported consignments of rough diamond from Hong Kong and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance through ICD, Jaipur. It was alleged that during scrutiny of the said Bills of Entry by the Directorate of Revenue Investigation (hereafter referred to as 'DRI'), it was found that the imported consignments were heavily overvalued. The articles, were therefore, were seized for further investigation on 8.8.2018 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") on reasonable belief that the they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act as the IEC holder, allegedly was found not to be the actual importer and a true declaration were not made as stipulated by Section 46 of the Act.

(3.) Show cause notices were not issued to the respondents before 25.10.2018 i.e. within six months from the date of detention of the goods. The DRI requested for extension of the period of issuing show cause notice by another six months under the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Act for the reasons outlined in a letter- dated 12.10.2018 to the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. The DRI informed the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur of various difficulties and impediments in not issuing the show cause notice within the prescribed time of six months from the date of detention and seizure of the goods. Being aggrieved by these orders, the respondents appealed to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'CESTAT').