2017 (4) TMI 316 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities - the petitioner s case is that although the Authorities have the power, in the facts of the case the power should not be exercised - Held that - The reasoned order passed by the Authority acting under a statute is justifiable. However to sustain a writ petition against such an order the petitioner has to demonstrate that, such order suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, or is perverse or has been passed for extraneous considerations or is such that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The Writ Court is not to sit in appeal over the impugned order, reassess the evidence and come to a different finding. The petitioner not able to substantiate any ground on which a reasoned order such as the one under challenge in the present writ petition has to be set aside - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs on lack of jurisdiction and delay in issuing show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated July 7, 2011, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, alleging lack of jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in issuing the show cause notice and delay in the issuance of the second show cause notice. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was beyond the prescribed time limit set by the High Court. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the available evidence on record.

The order in question, dated July 7, 2011, suspended the CHA license and was the subject of the writ petition. It was noted that prior to the suspension order, a show cause notice had been issued by the Customs Authorities, to which the petitioner had responded. Interestingly, in the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities but rather argued against the exercise of power in the specific circumstances of the case.

Regarding the delay in issuing the second show cause notice, it was determined that the time period set by the Court in a previous writ petition did not render the delay fatal. The judgment emphasized that a reasoned order passed by an Authority under a statute is subject to judicial review. However, for a writ petition to succeed against such an order, the petitioner must establish that the order lacks jurisdiction, is perverse, based on extraneous considerations, or shocks the conscience of the Court. The Court clarified that it does not reevaluate evidence or substitute its findings unless there are substantial grounds to set aside the order.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for setting aside the reasoned order issued by the Customs Authorities. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition without any order as to costs.