CESTAT Delhi Order in the case of Baldeep Singh V/s. Commissioner of Customs

Case Covered:

Baldeep Singh

Versus

Commissioner of Customs

Facts of the Case:

The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice was validly served on the appellant which is a condition precedent for giving jurisdiction to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order.

The case of the appellant is that he is neither an importer nor engaged in the business of import and export. Further, he does not have any Import Export Code (IEC). Brief facts of the case are that Revenue seized post parcels bearing Nos.

(i) EMS No. EA122469270 CN;
(ii) EA122469411 CN; and
(iii) EA 122469345 CN

imported from China not bearing the name of the consignor, at the foreign post office, New Delhi. The parcels were addressed to Shri Baldeep Singh, D-164, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi – 110008. The parcels were examined by the officers of DRI under panchnama. The goods were declared as CD and/or module whereas the goods were actually found as follows:-

As the goods were liable for confiscation, the same was seized. Summons were issued in the name of the appellant dated 11.02.2016, 02.03.2016, and 15.03.2016. Thereafter, nobody appears before the DRI. An officer personally visited the premises at D-164, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi-110008, but the person – Shri Baljeet Singh was not found. Thereafter, without ascertaining or identifying the main person – Shri Baljeet Singh, show cause notice dated 20.07.2016 was issued by speed post and also marked to notice board of DRI, DZU, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 and copy also marked to the notice board of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, FPO, Indraprastha Extension, New Delhi.

Observations:

In the present case in spite of the opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from a perusal of the order-in-original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have proceeded to pass the ex-parte order-in original, which is held to be a nullity in the eyes of law. Substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Department is by way of last resort. In the facts of the present case, I find that without identifying, the noticee, nor taking any reasonable measures of any substituted service as mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of Section 153(1), the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded to pass the ex-parte adjudication order. For passing a valid adjudication order, valid service of show cause notice is essential.

Related Topic:
CESTAT Order in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd

Order:

Accordingly, I hold that there is no valid service of show cause notice. Thus, the order-in-original is held without the authority of law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

Read & Download the Full Order in pdf: