Madras High Court rules on the notice date under Customs Act

Madras High Court rules on the notice date under Customs Act

It cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case

The Madras High Court has held that as per the law, the date of dispatch of notice alone should be taken into account and not the date of delivery for deciding the limitation in a dispute under the Customs Act.

The bench comprising Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad made the observation while ruling on the Lalchand Bhimraj vs The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal case.

The court dismissed the petition, which challenged the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner, who had claimed that the notices were barred by limitation.

The division bench held, "If the date of dispatch of notices is taken into consideration, the notices served on the petitioner are within the period of limitation."

The court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal where the doctrine of substantial compliance and its intended use was discussed.

The Apex Court's judgment had said, "In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty."

In the present case, the petitioner was subjected to customs duty on certain imported goods, which was paid. However, he was issued show-cause notices under the Customs Act.

The petitioner contended that the notices were barred by limitation since the Act stipulated that a show-cause notice for non-levy of anti-dumping duty must be served on the person chargeable with such duty within six months.

On the other hand, the respondents pleaded before the court that the demand notices were dispatched well within the six-month period. This was enough for compliance with the requirement under the Act.

The court took note of the fact that there was no dispute regarding the date of payment and expiration of limitation. The dispute was regarding the date of delivery.

The bench dismissed the petitions stating that only the date of dispatch was relevant. This meant the notices were issued within the period of limitation.

While advocate J. Sivanandaraaj appeared for the petitioner, the respondents were represented by senior standing counsel T Pramod Kumar Chopda.