COMMANDER AGRO (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-I, LAHORE Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

COMMANDER AGRO (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-I, LAHORE Ss. 179(3), second proviso & 179(4)---Show Cause Notice, issuance of---Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication) adjudicate a matter---Limitation---Time-bound proceeding, non-observance of---Effect---In the present case, admittedly, the Show Cause Notice was issued in 2014 (i.e. prior to amendment of Finance Act 2019); proceedings commenced on the basis of the Show Cause Notice before the Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication), who was under an obligation to decide the case within 120 days (as the law then was)---Such period was subsequently reduced to 90 days via Finance Act 2019---Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.12.2014 leaving the officer to decide the case within a period of 120 days in addition to adjournment sought in terms of 2nd proviso to section 179(3)---As per record (first/title page) the order-in-original was shown to have been passed as on 19th of May 2015, whereas at the end of the said order-in-original it was shown to have been signed on 4th of June, 2015---In counting the prescribed period in terms of section 179(3) (as it then was) a period of 120 days and another period of 30 days of adjournment i.e. 150 days were available to decide the case within the frame of section 179(3)---The order ought to have been passed on or before 4th of May of 2015---However, such order was shown to have been passed either on 4th June, 2015 or on 19th of May, 2015---Surprisingly, record (a letter) showed to have extended a request for extension of time in terms of section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, however, alleged extension was dated 20th of May 2015---The alleged extension was shown to have been passed much after the limit prescribed in terms of section 179(3), i.e. 150 days---Then (if this was done on 20th of May 2015), how an order could have been passed on 19th of May 2015 as disclosed on the title page of the customs order-in- original---Said time-bound proceeding in terms of sections 179(3) and 179(4) was mandatory---Since, in terms of the calculation/computation, the order-in-original was passed much beyond the time limits and even the alleged extension was much beyond the limit prescribed, (as it ought to have been extended, if at all, within the time frame), it left the decision i.e. order-in-original as time barred and consequently the proceedings under the aforesaid show cause notice could not continue any more---Supreme Court set-aside the impugned order of the High Court---Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed accordingly.

COMMANDER AGRO (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-I, LAHORE Ss — 2025 SCMR 1957 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR