2011 (4) TMI 185 - HC - Customs

Seizure - Duty evasion - Demand - There is no need to go into the allegations of the petitioner s Company regarding the happenings in Court on 22.07.2010 or the subsequent detention of Mr.S.Varadharajan by the authorities of the respondents - - The petitioner s Company have to submit their reply to the show cause notices and if any order is passed thereafter, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge, the show cause which was issued by a competent person - the allegations of bias cannot be taken into consideration when the action was taken as per the provisions of law for having violated statutory provisions - Writ petitions are dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the 6th respondent to issue show cause notices.
2. Alleged bias and mala-fide intention in issuing show cause notices.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions against show cause notices.
4. Alleged violations of statutory provisions by the petitioner's company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the 6th respondent to issue show cause notices:
The petitioner contended that the 6th respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices, relying on Notification No.83/2004-Customs(N.T), dated 30.06.2004. However, it was determined that Notification No.31/97-Cus(N.T), dated 07.07.1997, which appointed Superintendents and Inspectors of Central Excise as Officers of Customs, was not superseded by the 2004 notification. Thus, the 6th respondent was deemed the competent authority to issue the show cause notices.

Alleged bias and mala-fide intention in issuing show cause notices:
The petitioner alleged bias and mala-fide intentions by the officials, particularly citing incidents involving Mr. S. Varadharajan. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support these claims. The affidavit filed by Mr. S. Varadharajan was insufficient to establish bias, especially as the allegations were denied by the respondents' counsel and the actions taken were pursuant to statutory provisions.

Maintainability of writ petitions against show cause notices:
The court reiterated that writ petitions against show cause notices are generally not maintainable unless the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or in exceptional circumstances. Citing multiple precedents, the court emphasized that a show cause notice does not infringe any rights and is merely a step in the investigative process. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference by the court.

Alleged violations of statutory provisions by the petitioner's company:
The respondents argued that the show cause notices were based on substantial evidence of misuse of the Advance License Scheme and evasion of duty. The court noted that the petitioner should respond to the show cause notices and that the investigative process should proceed without judicial interference at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the 6th respondent had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices. The allegations of bias were unsubstantiated, and the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were deemed premature and not maintainable. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notices through appropriate legal channels.