9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1167 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - Validity of SCN issued u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to raise the jurisdictional issue, I find that such issue, cannot be put against the Officer, who issued the show cause notices, when such authority is admittedly, having competency and jurisdiction to issue the same. Merely because, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation before issuing the show cause notices was conducted by some other authority, even assuming such contention is factually and legally correct, still that cannot be a ground to question the jurisdiction of the authority, who issued the present show cause notices, when admittedly, the same is issued by the competent authority. These Writ Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable only on the reason that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petitions as against the show cause notices.
Issues:
Challenging show cause notices under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the origin of imported Tin Ingots under the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement. Analysis: The writ petitions were filed to challenge show cause notices issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 22.03.2019, 08.04.2019, and 16.04.2019, regarding the origin of Tin Ingots imported under the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement. The petitioners, engaged in importing and trading various products, including Tin Ingots, faced investigations by Customs authorities questioning the origin of the Malaysian Origin Tin Ingots imported. The petitioners argued that the show cause notices were issued without jurisdiction as the investigation was not conducted by the proper authority and there was a dispute between the countries of origin and import regarding origin determination. The petitioners contended that until the dispute was settled following procedures under the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement, the show cause notices could not be issued, making the writ petitions maintainable against the notices. Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Court found that the show cause notices were issued by a competent authority, dismissing the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioners. The Court noted that even if the investigation was conducted by another authority, it did not affect the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notices. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional issues could be raised before the Adjudicating Authority by filing objections to the show cause notices. The Court also addressed the contention regarding the dispute between countries on origin determination, highlighting that such issues should be raised before the Adjudicating Authority by filing a reply, as it was not mentioned in the show cause notices. The Court clarified that writ petitions cannot be maintained against show cause notices unless they were issued by a non-competent authority lacking jurisdiction or were illegal on the face of it. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the show cause notices through writ petitions. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to raise their objections before the authority issuing the notices within four weeks from receiving a copy of the order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
