HC Upholds Customs SCN Adjudication Despite Non-Communication of Extension Under Section 28(9):

HC Upholds Customs SCN Adjudication Despite Non-Communication of Extension Under Section 28(9) Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. imported aluminium foil and claimed concessional duty under the ASEAN-India FTA by furnishing Certificates of Origin (COOs) issued from Malaysia and Thailand in terms of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. Following a DRI alert and verification by Malaysian authorities, Customs alleged that the COOs were not genuine and issued a show cause notice proposing denial of exemption, recovery of duty, and penalties. The petitioner appealed to the High Court challenging the SCN on the ground that adjudication had been delayed beyond the statutory time limit, without any extension order under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act being communicated. During the pendency of the writ petition, the adjudication culminated in an Order-in-Original. Issue Raised: Whether adjudication under Section 28 of the Customs Act becomes invalid merely because the order granting extension of time under Section 28(9) was not communicated to the noticee. HC's Order: The Hon'ble High Court held that Section 28(9) does not require communication of an order extending the time limit for adjudication. Unlike Section 110(2) of the Act, which expressly mandates intimation of extension, Section 28 contains no such requirement. While communication of the extension may be desirable, its absence does not vitiate the adjudication. The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, was repeatedly called upon to respond and attend hearings, but chose not to contest the case on its merits. Since the extension had been granted within the statutory framework and no procedural illegality was shown, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original within one month. If filed within that period, the appeal was directed to be heard on the merits without being rejected on limitation. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below