2014 (12) TMI 1120 - HC - Customs

Petition filed against SCN - SCN alleges several acts of omission and commission at different places namely within the Commissionerate of Nhava Seva Port, Mumbai, at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, at Tuglakabad , New Delhi and at Kolkata - Held that - Apart from settled principles, which indicate as to how the writ jurisdiction has to be exercised and for interfering with the show cause notice, we are satisfied that the apprehension of the Petitioner that the noticees may have to travel and face adjudication at several venues at the hands of different adjudicating officers is taken care of by the statement made, on instructions, by Mr.Jetly . We accept it as an undertaking given to this Court. We direct that the Respondents shall take the requisite steps so as to comply with their own guidelines and circulars to ensure that the adjudication will be held and concluded at one venue and not requiring the Petitioner to travel and attend the offices of several adjudicating authorities, bodies or officers, particularly at Delhi, Mumbai, in the State of Gujarat or at Kolkata. The argument that there is a pre-adjudication and predetermination of the issues raised in the show cause notice need not detain us. That may require us to go into the contents and particularly merits of the show cause notice, which is not permissible at this stage. We clarify that it would be open for the Petitioner to raise all contentions including those based on the grounds in the Writ Petition at the adjudication of the show cause notice, it would also be open to them to contend that despite their appearance before the adjudicating authority, the show cause notice and to several persons, combining several issues, several acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the persons and entities having no business connection or business relation makes the show cause notice itself vulnerable. Show cause notice purports to level certain allegations and serious doubts, but there is already determination or adjudication with regard thereto and issuance of such notice is, therefore, a mere formality. These and all contentions are kept open for being raised by the Petitioner before the adjudicating authority and equally at an appropriate stage thereafter. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice involving multiple entities and locations; Pre-adjudication and pre-determination of issues in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 23 June 2014 involving about 35 persons and various acts at different locations. The notice did not establish a business link among the entities, leading to concerns about its validity. The petitioner argued that the notice already made determinations, rendering the show cause exercise a mere formality. The respondent contended that interference in a show cause notice is limited unless jurisdictional issues or malafide intentions are demonstrated. The respondent assured that adjudication would occur at one venue to avoid multiple travels for the parties.

The court noted settled principles governing interference in show cause notices and accepted the respondent's assurance regarding adjudication at a single venue. The court directed compliance with guidelines to ensure adjudication at one venue. It declined to entertain the petitioner's concerns about pre-adjudication, stating that such issues could be raised during the adjudication process. The court clarified that the disposal of the writ petition would not prejudice the petitioner's rights to raise contentions during adjudication and at subsequent stages.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing all concerned parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. The judgment addressed the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the show cause notice, ensuring fair adjudication at a single venue and preserving the petitioner's rights to raise contentions during the adjudication process and at subsequent stages.