Allegation of Forged Signature on Extension Letter Not Proved: Calcutta HC Upholds Customs’ SCN Timeline [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court dismissed allegations of a forged signature on the Customs extension letter and upheld the validity of the extended timeline for issuing the show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner, Naim Ali Mallick alias Naim Ali Mullick, filed a petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the Customs authorities to return the seized gold and Indian currency along with interest. The seizure occurred on 18.01.2024. According to the petitioner, no show-cause notice was issued within six months from the date of seizure, as mandated under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Accordingly, the statutory period expired on 17.07.2024, but the show-cause notice was dispatched only on 5.08.2024 and received on 7.08.2024. The petitioner contended that no extension of time was ever communicated to him and that a letter produced by the Customs authorities, dated 10.07.2024 and indicating such extension, was fabricated by misusing his signature obtained on blank paper during the seizure process.

Represented by a counsel of representatives, the petitioner argued that although the signature on the alleged extension letter was his, the signature had been taken on blank sheets of paper and later misused. It was alleged that the date written beneath the signature was not written by the petitioner and matched the handwriting of the Customs Superintendent. The petitioner submitted that the placement of the signature on the letter was suspicious and inconsistent with a normal acknowledgment of receipt.

Further, requested that the letter be sent for forensic examination and even suggested verification through mobile tower location data to establish that he was not present at the stated place and time on 10.07.2024. The petitioner also contended that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had not personally communicated the extension, had failed to record independent reasons for granting the extension, and that the absence of a Document IdentificationNumber (DIN) rendered the communication invalid.

The Customs authorities, represented by Uday Sankar Bhattacharya and K. K. Maiti submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had validly extended the period for issuing the show-cause notice on 10.07.2024 after recording reasons. The respondents argued that the petitioner had acknowledged the extension letter on the same day, and that no contemporaneous complaint alleging coercion or misuse of blank papers had been lodged.

An affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs affirmed the authenticity of the letter and confirmed its proper service. The respondents also argued that the absence of a Document Identification Number did not invalidate the communication, since the affidavit itself confirmed its issuance and authenticity.

Justice Om Narayan Rai dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the extended timeline for issuing the show-cause notice. The Court found that the note sheet produced by the Customs authorities demonstrated that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had approved the extension on 10.07.2024 based on recorded reasons. The Court held that these reasons satisfied the requirement of the first proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Court ruled that allegations that the petitioner’s signature was obtained on blank paper or that the date was inserted fraudulently raised disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous complaint filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner admitted that the signature on the extension letter was his, and the Customs department had affirmed through affidavit that the letter was duly issued and received, there was no basis to disbelieve the department’s version.

Also Read: CESTAT Erred in Ignoring Existing Deposits: Delhi HC Rules Deposits already with Customs Bar Dismissal of Appeals

The Court also rejected the contention that the communication was invalid due to the absence of a DIN. It held that the purpose of the DIN requirement was to ensure authentication and audit trail, which had been sufficiently established through the sworn affidavit of the Customs authorities.

Since the extension was granted and communicated before the expiry of the original six-month period, and the show-cause notice was issued within the extended timeframe, the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the seized gold and currency.

The writ petition was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates