Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs v. Sahana Traders

Madras HC10 Feb 2025CMA(MD)/1222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental appeal against a CESTAT remand order on DRI competency to issue show cause notice was withdrawn after the Supreme Court upheld DRI jurisdiction in Mangli Impex review proceedings. The court permitted withdrawal and allowed adjudication on merits per the Supreme Court's orders.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to proceed with adjudication on merits as directed by the Supreme Court; no costs.

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Sahana Traders — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD) No.1222 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

C.M.A.(MD)No.1222 of 2024 and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.12821 & 14173 of 2024

¶9

The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004. ... Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s.Sahana Traders, 53/5, Thuraiyur Road, Musiri, Trichy – 621 211, Tamil Nadu.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned common Final Order No.43138 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017 by the CESTAT, Chennai.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.K.Arunraj

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.M.P.(MD) No.1222 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA , J.

¶20

For the alleged evasion of duty by undervaluation, the Director of Revenue Intelligence has issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 16.03.2010. Pursuant to that, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, has passed the order in original on 08.12.2010. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeal), Tiruchirappalli, has passed the order in Appeal No.82/2011. The said order in Appeal No.82/2011 is the subject matter before the CESTAT. Since preliminary objection regarding competency of DRI officials causing show cause under the Customs Act, 1962, was raised by the respondent in the said appeal, the CESTAT, after considering the law prevailing at that point of time, had disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-

¶21

“By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (Supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained.”

¶22

2/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

C.M.P.(MD) No.1222 of 2024

¶25

Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was laid before this Court.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing for consideration by this Court today, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned standing counsel representing the Customs Department that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of Mangli Impex case holding the officials of DRI are competent to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, and also permitted the Department to adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Customs Department informs this Court that he has been instructed by the Department to withdraw the appeal with liberty to proceed with adjudication on merits as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Application petition No.400/21 filed by the Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex Case) . The communication from the Department dated 29.01.2025 is also placed before this Court for consideration.

¶27

In view of the above facts, the Customs Department is permitted to withdraw the appeal and proceed with the adjudication as per the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Application petition No.400/21 filed by the Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited (Mangli Impex

¶28

3/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.P.(MD) No.1222 of 2024

¶31

Case) . Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶32

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.] 10.02.2025 (1/2)

¶34

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Sm

¶35

4/5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.M.P.(MD) No.1222 of 2024

¶38

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶39

AND R.POORNIMA , J.

¶40

¶41

Order made in C.M.A.(MD)No.1222 of 2024 (1/2)

¶42

Dated: 10.02.2025

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/5

The Commissioner of Customs v. Sahana Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Customs v. Sahana Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udhayakumar Vs The State of TamilNadu

M.Kasbar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Priyadharshni Vs The State represented by its

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Pathi Prints

Tamil Selvi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/s.Flower World