Judgment : (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioners seek to challenge the legality of a notice to show cause dated 22 September 2000, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and a communication dated 18 December 2012 of the Superintendent of Customs intimating that a personal hearing of the case has been fixed on 18 January 2013. 2. On 28 December 1996, a notice to show cause was issued to Beacon Maritime Carriers Pvt. Ltd. for a failure to export and to account for 59 cargo containers. During the course of the personal hearing on 25 June 1997, the adjudicating authority was informed by the Advocate appearing for the noticee that its contract had been terminated on 16 November 1996 by the principal shipping agency (National Shipping Agency of Saudi Arabia) and a fresh contract had been awarded to DBC Freight International. The letter dated 17 November 1996 of the principal shipping agency provided an undertaking to satisfactorily account for the cargo covered by the Import General Manifest (IGM) filed by Beacon Maritime Carriers and requested that the latter be released of all liabilities and responsibilities. An indemnity was also furnished. 3. On 21 December 1998, the principal shipping agency once again intimated the adjudicating authority that it had terminated the services of DBC Freight International and all its liabilities and responsibilities were transferred to Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. A request was, hence, made that all notices to show cause and orders should be addressed to the newly appointed agent. 4. On 23 August 2000, the Advocate for Beacon Maritime Carriers drew the attention of the Commissioner of Customs, who was adjudicating upon the show cause notice, to the changes which had taken place as aforesaid. The adjudicating authority accordingly directed that a fresh notice to show cause should be issued to Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. to whom an opportunity of a personal hearing should be afforded. 5. On 22 September 2000, a fresh notice to show cause was issued to Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. On 30 March 2001, a letter was submitted by the newly appointed agent to the effect that the containers did not belong to it but belonged to the shippers. 6. On 19 August 2002, the Petitioners informed the Commissioner of Customs that the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia had appointed the Petitioners as its agent. 6. On 19 August 2002, the Petitioners informed the Commissioner of Customs that the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia had appointed the Petitioners as its agent. By a letter, the Petitioners intimated the Department that they took over the responsibility of re-exporting all the containers and requested the Commissioner of Customs to release and discharge Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. from the bonds which were submitted to the Union Government. The letter of the Petitioners inter alia furnished the following undertaking: “Under express authority and on behalf of our said principals The National Shipping company of Saudi Arabia, we now hereby unconditionally agree and undertake to satisfactorily account for all cargoes covered in all IGMs filed by Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, and further to pay all and any sums whatsoever outstanding due and/or payable by Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd., on demand, without any protest or demur, in respect of vessel and/or container/cargo-related matters in any manner associated with Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. having acted as agents for NSCSA and accordingly, we request you to direct all show cause notices, orders, demands, etc. directly to us, instead of Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd., and also hereby request you to release Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. from all responsibilities and liabilities in this behalf, in respect of all penalties, duties, fines or otherwise, whether determined or to be determined, presently pending or outstanding, as well as future custom claims and/or penalties, in respect of vessels and/or cargoes in any manner relating to The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia's operations. Furthermore, in pursuance of specifically conferred authority, we confirm having undertaken to hold Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. fully and completely indemnified and harmless in respect of the aforesaid matters. Accordingly, we now hereby request you to kindly release Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. from all obligations under the Customs Act, including but not limited to this IGMs. In consideration of our accepting all responsibilities in this regard.” 7. On 9 September 2004 and 15 September 2004 a personal hearing was held on the notice to show cause. According to the Customs authorities, (as set out in the affidavit in reply in these proceedings), it transpired that in a number of cases, adjudication proceedings were pending as the shipping agents were not in a position to re-export containers which were detained by the concerned agencies. According to the Customs authorities, (as set out in the affidavit in reply in these proceedings), it transpired that in a number of cases, adjudication proceedings were pending as the shipping agents were not in a position to re-export containers which were detained by the concerned agencies. In the present case, it has been stated that the goods in the disputed containers were seized by the DRI and proceedings in relation to the cargo were pending before the CESTAT. On this ground, it has been stated in the reply that the present case was taken out of the call book. Subsequently, according to the Department, the case was placed for adjudication in pursuance of which, a notice was issued to the Petitioners to remain present for a hearing before the adjudicating authority on 18 December 2012. 8. The contention of the Petitioners is that in the present case: (i) The issuance of a show cause notice was barred by limitation since in the absence of collusion, suppression or willful mis-statement, a notice ought to have been issued within a period of one year from the accrual of the cause of action. According to the Petitioners, the containers were liable to be re-exported within a period of six months and the cause of action would have arisen on 30 June 1995 as a result of which, a notice to show cause could have been issued at the latest on 30 June 1996. However, according to the Petitioners, the original notice, which was issued to the first agent on 28 December 1996, was beyond limitation; (ii) The failure on the part of the Department to adjudicate upon the notice to show cause since 22 September 2000, is unexplained and the delay must invalidate the notice; (iii) The containers and the goods were owned by the shippers. Since the goods and the containers were not owned by the Petitioners, its predecessor or principal, but by the consignor, the containers could not be re-exported by the shipping agent. Moreover, the containers were being held on detention at the Central Warehousing Corporation, Vashi, which was an additional ground why the containers could not be re-exported. 9. Two affidavits in reply have been filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 26 February 2013 and 21 March 2013. 10. Moreover, the containers were being held on detention at the Central Warehousing Corporation, Vashi, which was an additional ground why the containers could not be re-exported. 9. Two affidavits in reply have been filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 26 February 2013 and 21 March 2013. 10. The material on the record would indicate that from time to time, the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia informed the Customs Department of the termination of the contract, firstly with Beacon Maritime Carriers Pvt.Ltd. in whose place DBC Freight International was appointed; secondly, upon the termination of the contract of DBC Freight International, Sentrans Maritime Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as agent; and thirdly, upon the termination of the contract of the second agent, in its place the Petitioners were appointed as agents. By their letter dated 19 August 2002 (Annexure R-9 to the reply), the Petitioners unconditionally agreed and undertook to satisfactorily account for all cargo covered in all IGMs filed by the previous agent on behalf of the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the Petitioners undertook to pay all sums whatsoever outstanding, due and/or payable in respect of vessel and/or the container/cargo-related matters. The Petitioners specifically stated that all notices should be issued to them instead and in place of the previous agent. It was on this representation that the Petitioners sought release of the previous agent from all obligations under the Customs Act in consideration of their acceptance of all responsibilities in that regard. During the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Department has placed on the record and made available to the Petitioners, a compilation of documents pertaining to the cargo. From the compilation, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners deduced that the following events transpired: (i) On 24 March 1998, a notice to show cause was issued to the importer; (ii) On 7 April 1999, an order was passed in favour of the importer upon adjudication; (iii) On 30 July 2004, the order of adjudication was set aside by the CESTAT which directed a fresh adjudication; (iv) On 12 December 2006, the adjudication proceedings were decided against the importer; and (v) On 14 May 2007, a stay was granted by the CESTAT. These dates which have been placed before the Court by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would indicate that this is not a case where there is a gross or unexplained delay on the part of the Customs authorities in adjudicating on the show cause notice. Nor, from the material on the record can the Court draw an inference to the effect that the show cause notice has been abandoned. On the contrary, as the material would indicate, the cargo was subject to an investigation by the DRI and proceedings in relation thereto were pending. There was a change in the agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia from time to time and the Petitioners held out a solemn undertaking to the Department that they accepted all responsibility in consideration of which they sought a release or discharge of the previous agent from all liabilities. Whether there has been a delay of such a nature that it would be inequitable to compel a noticee to defend the proceedings has to be adjudged on the basis of each individual case. There can be no inflexible rule and the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has to consider on the facts of a particular case, whether the delay is of such nature as to result in serious prejudice being caused to the noticee. The Petitioners cannot make that assumption particularly having regard to the undertaking which they furnished to the Customs authorities to assume all responsibilities instead and in place of the previous agent. 11. The issue as to whether the original notice to show cause was beyond limitation is a point which can be urged before and decided by the adjudicating authority. Prior to its substitution by Act 8 of 2011, Section 28 stipulated that where any duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded, the proper officer should serve a notice under clause (b) within six months on the person chargeable with the duty or interest. Under the proviso, as it then stood, an extended period of five years was provided in the event of a collusion, mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer, exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter. Under the proviso, as it then stood, an extended period of five years was provided in the event of a collusion, mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer, exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter. We are not inclined, in the present case, to render a finding on this aspect since it involves a mixed question of law and fact which must be determined in the adjudicating proceedings. Similarly, it would not be appropriate for the Court to make any adjudication on the merits of the defence which is urged by the Petitioners since that is essentially a matter of adjudication. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has sought to rely upon a judgment of Mr.Justice S.K. Desai in BhagwandasS. Tolani vs. B.C. Aggarwal, (1983(12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.)holding that the Department is not entitled to hold adjudication proceedings after a long time since this would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the noticee. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court, following the Learned Single Judge in ShirishHarshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (2010 (254) E.L.T. 259 (Bom.). In the case before the Division Bench, it was noticed that almost for a period of twelve years, no steps were taken by the Respondents to proceed with the adjudication proceedings. The Division Bench also noticed that the absence of the relevant record due to a lapse of more than twelve years was also a factual aspect which had to be taken into account. It was on these facts that the notice to show cause was quashed. In the present case, the facts are distinguishable. The present case is not one where no action whatsoever was taken by the Customs authorities. On the other hand, as the record would indicate, a personal hearing was held from time to time during the course of which, the Adjudicating Officer was informed of subsequent changes in the agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. The Department was apprised of that fact that adjudication proceedings in relation to the cargo were pending and a conscious decision was taken to take the adjudication in the present case out of the call book. The Department was apprised of that fact that adjudication proceedings in relation to the cargo were pending and a conscious decision was taken to take the adjudication in the present case out of the call book. Ultimately, whether the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should quash a notice to show cause, purely on the ground of delay, is a matter which has to be decided in each individual case. We are not satisfied that the interest of justice will require the quashing of the proceedings in the present case. The Petitioners have the full range of defences open in regard to the notice to show cause in the course of adjudication proceedings. 12. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Petition. The Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.