2019 (3) TMI 1720 - HC - Customs

Validity of SCN - petitioners submitted that before issuing the impugned show cause notice, the competent authority was required to comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 46, 47 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Mere issuance of show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause against the action proposed therein cannot tantamount to infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the authority is well within its rights to exercise its statutory powers to issue the show cause notice which has not been questioned by the petitioner in the instant case. In the fact situation of the case, the questions of fact arise for adjudication in these writ petitions. Therefore, this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 225 of the Constitution of India which otherwise is discretionary in nature is not inclined to interfere at this stage. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the validity of a show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs Committee. The petitioner had filed bills of entry for import clearance, and the authority raised queries regarding the import. The petitioner responded to the queries and explained the purpose of the imported products. However, a show cause notice was issued, which the petitioner contested. The petitioner argued that the authority did not follow the prescribed procedures under Sections 46, 47, and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claimed the notice was premature and based on presumptions, amounting to a mala fide exercise of power. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the jurisdiction of the authority was not challenged, and the show cause notice was valid. They contended that the products were dispatched before the notice and referred to supporting documents to establish the timeline of import.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to precedents to determine its course of action. Citing previous judgments, the court highlighted that interference under Article 226 should be avoided if the show cause notice is not without jurisdiction and does not violate fundamental rights. In this case, the court observed that the jurisdiction of the authority to issue the notice was not disputed by the petitioner. The court noted that the factual issues raised in the case required adjudication beyond the scope of a writ petition. Therefore, the court declined to interfere at that stage but granted the petitioner liberty to file objections to the show cause notice. The court directed the competent authority to consider and decide on the objections expeditiously after providing the petitioner with a hearing. The court maintained that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the interim order to continue until the objections were resolved.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to challenge the show cause notice by filing objections and obtaining a decision from the competent authority. The court emphasized that it had not delved into the merits of the case but provided the petitioner with an opportunity to address the notice through the prescribed procedure.