TRB INTERNATIONAL LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Facts

The petitioner, T.R.B. International Ludhiana, filed a review application seeking to set aside an order dated 20.10.2023, by which their writ petition was dismissed. The original writ petition sought to restrain the respondent, Commissioner of Customs, from adjudicating show cause notices dated 28.01.2022 on grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the dismissal order failed to consider a judgment from the Delhi High Court in Gautam Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) New Delhi, which held that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Canon India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2021 SCC Online SC 2000) was not applicable when show cause notices were issued by an appropriate authority, not the DRI. The revenue contended that the petitioner deliberately delayed filing a reply to the show cause notices for ten months, despite being given ample opportunities and being informed of a one-year extension granted by the Chief Commissioner on 15.12.2022.

Held

The High Court dismissed the review application. The Court reiterated that the scope of review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional errors, or non-consideration of binding decisions, referencing Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406. The Court noted that while the Gautam Spinners judgment was not explicitly referred to in the original order, the letter dated 09.12.2022 did mention the Canon's case. The Court presumed that the original decision considered the entire law laid down by superior courts. It held that judgments from coordinate benches of other High Courts, while relevant, are not binding and do not necessitate a review of its own order. Each High Court can take a different view. Therefore, based on a judgment from a coordinate bench of another High Court, the Court found no compelling reason to review its earlier order. The review application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, which sought to restrain the adjudication of show cause notices on grounds of limitation, was an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly in light of the judgment in Gautam Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) New Delhi? Assessee's Arguments: - The dismissal order failed to consider the judgment in Gautam Spinners, which distinguished the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. The Gautam Spinners judgment held that Canon's case, which stated DRI officers are not proper officers under Section 28(9B) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not apply when show cause notices are issued by an appropriate authority, not the DRI. - An error apparent on the face of the record occurred because the original order relied on the Canon's case for granting an extension, which is inapplicable here as the show cause notice was not issued by the DRI. - Relied on Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 596 for review grounds. Revenue's Arguments: - The petitioner deliberately delayed filing a reply to the show cause notices for ten months. - The petitioner was aware of the one-year extension granted by the Chief Commissioner on 15.12.2022. - The letter dated 09.12.2022 was merely a request for extension, while the Chief Commissioner's order on 15.12.2022 considered all circumstances.