2019 (8) TMI 695 - HC - Customs

Seizure of Gold - Smuggling - offence punishable under Section 135 of 'The Customs Act, 1962' - Jurisdiction of SCN - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid exceptions warranting interference in writ jurisdiction have not been made out by the writ petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, while not interfering with the impugned SCN and obviously the Seizure Mahazar prior to the impugned SCN, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner by communicating the date, time and venue of the personal hearing well in advance and thereafter proceed with the adjudication and carry the impugned SCN to its logical end. In the interregnum, it is made clear that there is no impediment for the respondents to process the application for provisional release under Section 110-A of said Act, which is said to have been made. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice and seizure Mahazar.

Analysis:
The main writ petition challenges a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 07.06.2019 and a Seizure Mahazar dated 12.12.2018 issued by the respondents. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition regarding the seized gold, which was disposed of with specific orders for provisional release under Section 110 A of the Customs Act 1962. The impugned SCN was issued while the earlier writ petition was pending, and the petitioner was granted a personal hearing in relation to it. The petitioner primarily contested the SCN on the grounds that it prejudged the issue of foreign origin gold smuggling and the alleged offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962. The Revenue counsel argued that these issues would be determined during the adjudication process. The court noted that the scope of challenging an SCN is limited, and the specific allegations in the SCN would be addressed during the adjudication. The court referred to relevant legal principles emphasizing that interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted unless the SCN is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and proceed with the adjudication without interfering with the SCN or the Seizure Mahazar. The court also allowed the processing of the application for provisional release under Section 110-A of the Act during this period. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision.