The Madras High Court, recognizing the discrepancy in addresses and the absence of a fair hearing opportunity, has invalidated the customs order. Consequently, the court has directed the authorities to issue a corrected Show Cause Notice (SCN) reflecting the petitioner’s accurate address.
The petitioner had imported the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 40169590, claiming exemption from basic customs duty under applicable notifications. They asserted that the goods were cleared without objections, even following an audit.
However, complications arose due to a change in the petitioner’s registered place of business from the original address to No.137/IAI, Kosappur Road, Theeyampakkam, Madhavaram. The petitioner claimed not to have received notices prior to the issuance of the impugned order.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted the issuance of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) Certificate and a communication dated 10.03.2023, informing the Deputy Commissioner of Customs about the address change. They argued that the impugned order was issued after the said communication.
Mr. K. Mohanamurali, senior standing counsel representing the respondents, stated that the change of address wasn’t communicated to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate to whom the matter was transferred.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy court observed that despite the petitioner providing documents indicating their current address, the impugned order was sent to a different address. Notably, the letter dated 10.03.2023, bearing the stamp of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, confirmed the address change.
The court noted that “In these circumstances, the impugned order was clearly issued without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the said order is not sustainable.”
Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 22.02.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a copy of the show cause notice to the petitioner within a week and the petitioner was instructed to reply within two weeks thereafter.
Furthermore, the court directed the respondent to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receiving the petitioner’s reply. All contentions were left open to the petitioner. The court concluded the disposal of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
