Gurjit Singh Bains v. Addl Commissioner of Customs Import & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These two petitions i.e. W.P.(C) 8263/2024 & W.P.(C) 8301/2024 have been filed by the Petitioners i.e. Gurjit Singh Bains and Sandeep Arora respectively, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned show cause notice bearing F. no. DRI/MZU/F/ENQ(INT)100/2014/10175 dated 30th December, 2014 and the Order-in-Original bearing no. 74/2024/KP/ADDL.COMMR/IMP/ICDTKD dated 30th March, 2024 passed consequent to the said show cause notice.

3. The brief background is that a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter ‘DRI’) investigation was initiated against one M/s. Seiger International, New Delhi for evasion of Customs Duty for the period between May 2011 to October 2012. The allegation was that the Proprietor of the said firm Ms. Kulpreet Kaur along with Mr. Sandeep Arora, Managing Director of M/s Glo Trans Logistics Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi in collusion with one Mr. Gurjit Singh Bains submitted duplicate lower value invoices for clearance of the imported goods. The said individuals i.e., Ms. Kulpreet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Arora, had been summoned for tendering evidence, both documentary and oral. During the evidence, various documents were submitted and statements were also recorded.

4. The original invoices were given by Mr. Gurjit Singh Bains for the furniture and lighting fixtures, which were also filed. The statements of Ms. Kulpreet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Arora were recorded on 19th August 2014 and 21st August 2014 respectively. Mr. Gurjit Singh Bains, who is a resident of Italy, refused to appear before the DRI, despite summons being issued for his presence.

5. The show cause notice was then issued on the basis of the statements which were recorded and the documentary evidences filed. In terms of the show cause, the noticees were directed to file their reply as to why action ought not to have been taken against them.

6. The main firm i.e., M/s Seiger International through the Proprietor i.e. Ms. Kulpreet Kaur approached the Settlement Commission, Principal Bench under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Settlement Commission heard the parties and after considering the entire matter, passed an order dated 13th April 2016 wherein the commission settled the amounts payable by Ms. Kulpreet Kaur. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:-

further remains to be paid on this count. Interest: The total interest amount in this case is settled at Rs 33,48,526/- ( Thirty three lakhs forty eight thousand five hundred twenty six only). This amount has been paid by the applicant. The Revenue is given liberty to re-calculate the interest on the settled duty amount within 15 days of the receipt of this order and inform the same to the applicant who shall pay the such amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of such intimation from Revenue under intimation to Revenue Penalty: In the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench imposes a penalty of Rs 1,50,000/- ( One Lakh fifty thousand only)/- on the applicant under the provisions invoked in the SCN and grants them immunity from penalty in excess of the said amount. Fine: As goods are not available for confiscation, the Bench refrains from imposing any redemption fine. Prosecution: Subject to the payment of the aforesaid amounts, the Bench grants immunity to the applicant from prosecution under the Act and Rules made there-under in so far as this case is concerned. ……..

17. The case is settled in respect of the applicant mentioned above and the Revenue is free to take action against the notices in the SCN as deemed fit.”

7. As can be seen from the above order, immunity was granted to Ms. Kulpreet Kaur, subject to the payments being made. The Customs Department was, however, free to take action against other noticees, who had received the show cause notice.

8. Thereafter, according to the Petitioners, no notice was given for further proceedings as per the show cause notice dated 30th December 2014. Also, no reply was filed on behalf of the Petitioners and the Petitioners had not been given any personal hearing. On 30th March, 2024, the final impugned order was passed. In the impugned order, it is recorded that repeated hearing notices were given, however, none appeared. This position is disputed by the Petitioners.

9. Mr. Pradeep Jain, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners raises a challenge to the Order-in-Original on two grounds; (i) that the adjudication is extremely belated i.e., after almost a period of ten years; and

(ii) the main firm i.e. M/s Seiger International, having approached the

Settlement Commission and the entire duty along with interest having been paid, the other notices i.e., Mr. Sandeep Arora, Managing Director of M/s Glo-Trans Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the Handing Agent and the Italian Firms (M/s BGB Italia & M/s ABH Servizi), who were the foreign supplier, cannot now be proceeded against.

10. A counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the Respondent No.1-Additional Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Inland Contained Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the Respondent is that the matter was placed in the call book from time to time but due to constant changes in the legal position, the same could not be adjudicated. The Respondent states that the case was transferred in the call book on 29th March, 2018 and accordingly, the noticees were duly informed on 26th March, 2021. Again, it is stated that on 31st March, 2022, there was re-assignment of roles of various officers and in view thereof, there may have been a delay in adjudication.