2018 (11) TMI 106 - HC - Customs

Issuance of Show Cause notice challenged - non supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - The statutory proceedings initiated based on certain materials available on record, must reach its logical conclusion. In the present case on hand, the writ petitioner has raised certain grounds by stating that along with the show cause notice, the documents relied upon has not been supplied. All such requests can be made before the competent authorities and the writ petitioner can submit his explanations / objections in respect of the allegations set out in the show cause notice. However, the merits in this regard cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. This Court is of an opinion that the show cause notice impugned in the present writ petition has been issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the writ petitioner is bound to respond to the show cause notice by submitting his explanations / objections and defend his case in the manner known to law. The writ petitioner has not established any acceptable legal ground, for the purpose of quashing the show cause notice - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Issues: Challenge to show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, stating that the respondents did not provide all relevant documents, hindering the petitioner's ability to respond adequately.
2. The petitioner argued that the value of the seized goods was unilaterally determined without sufficient reasons, emphasizing the need for detailed inventory to ascertain the true value.
3. The court noted that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to explain the allegations and irregularities, rather than shifting it to the Department.
4. Emphasizing that the merits of the case cannot be decided in a writ petition, the court highlighted the importance of presenting original documents and evidence during the hearing.
5. The court criticized the petitioner's lack of knowledge about the allegations, stating that all necessary details should be available with the petitioner's company for responding to the show cause notice.
6. It was reiterated that the petitioner should have submitted explanations and objections instead of challenging the notice on its merits.
7. The court clarified the procedure under Section 124 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to establish innocence through explanations and objections, with the option of appeal under Section 128.
8. Judicial review of a show cause notice is limited to specific grounds such as jurisdictional issues or mala fides, and unwarranted interventions should be avoided to maintain procedural integrity.
9. The court warned against using writ petitions to delay proceedings, urging prompt responses from both parties to ensure a fair and timely resolution.
10. Negligence or dereliction of duty by officials in responding to court orders may lead to disciplinary actions, highlighting the importance of timely and diligent handling of legal matters.
11. The court dismissed the writ petition, as the petitioner failed to establish legal grounds for quashing the show cause notice, directing the petitioner to submit explanations and objections as required by law.

← Previous Next →