2018 (4) TMI 1437 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - validity of SCN - it was contended that petitioner was not at all involved in the alleged offence and therefore, the notice was issued on a wrong person - Confiscation - Held that - whether a notice issued was on right person or wrong person, is a factual issue of the matter, which has to be necessarily considered and decided by the authority, who issued the said notice. Therefore, it does not mean that the Authority, who issued the notice is lacking jurisdiction. The petitioner is not disputing the power vested on the second respondent under the relevant statute. Therefore, he is not justified in his contention on the jurisdictional issue, since all those contentions raised are fully factual aspect of the matter, that too from the point of view of the petitioner, which cannot decide the jurisdiction of the second respondent. There is no jurisdictional error, warranting interference with the impugned show cause notice by entertaining this writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdictional error in issuing show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges a show cause notice issued under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, calling upon the petitioner and two others to show cause regarding the confiscation of goods. The petitioner argues a jurisdictional error, claiming not being involved in the alleged offense and that the notice was issued to the wrong person. The counsel contends that the notice does not disclose the petitioner's role in the alleged offense, seeking the court's intervention.

The court dismisses the petitioner's claim of jurisdictional error, stating that the question of whether the notice was issued to the right person is a factual matter to be decided by the issuing authority. The court emphasizes that the authority's jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice must be determined based on the empowerment under the relevant statute. As the petitioner does not dispute the authority vested in the second respondent under the statute, the contention on jurisdictional issues is deemed unfounded.

The petitioner further argues that the alleged mastermind behind the offense was not issued a show cause notice, questioning the justification for issuing the notice to the petitioner. The court clarifies that this is another factual aspect to be addressed by the second respondent, emphasizing that such matters fall within the authority's purview to investigate and decide.

Consequently, the court concludes that there is no jurisdictional error warranting the interference of the impugned show cause notice through the writ petition. The petition is dismissed without expressing a view on the merits raised by the petitioner, as it is the responsibility of the second respondent to evaluate the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice. The court orders no costs and closes the connected miscellaneous petition.