2020 (8) TMI 704 - HC - Customs

Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Violation of Foreign Trade Policy - SFIS scheme - HELD THAT - It appears that the petitioner, who was the Chief Operating Officer of M/s KPMG during the period in dispute, has challenged a show cause notice dated 26th June, 2020 issued to him by the Customs authorities (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition). The respondents have invited reply of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, as stated in para-10 therein. As the show cause notice is yet to be decided or adjudicated upon by the concerned respondents authorities, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner has to give reply of the show cause notice to the concerned respondent authorities and if the respondents decide any issue against the petitioner, the petitioner is not remediless. This is a premature writ petition, we are not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner may file a reply of the show cause notice and the concerned respondents authorities shall adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the facts of the case and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice issued by Customs authorities regarding alleged breach of Foreign Trade Policy and misuse of SFIS scheme.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a former Chief Operating Officer of a company, challenged a show cause notice issued by Customs authorities alleging a breach of Foreign Trade Policy and misuse of the 'Served from India Scheme' (SFIS). The petitioner sought writs of Prohibition and Certiorari to prevent any action against the notice and to quash it, respectively.

2. The court noted the arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding lack of jurisdiction by the respondents in issuing the show cause notice. However, the court disagreed and held that the authorities had the power and authority to issue the notice for the alleged violations. The court emphasized that objections raised could be addressed before the authorities and did not warrant interference through a writ petition.

3. The petitioner's counsel contended that there was no violation of Foreign Trade Policy or misuse of SFIS credits. The licenses issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) were argued to be valid, as per the petitioner's submission.

4. As the show cause notice was pending adjudication, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court highlighted that the petitioner had the opportunity to respond to the notice, and if adverse decisions were made, remedies were available.

5. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that writ petitions should not be entertained merely on the issuance of a show cause notice. The court referred to cases where it was held that objections should first be raised before the issuing authority before seeking redress through writ jurisdiction.

6. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as premature, directing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The court stressed that the authorities should adjudicate the matter in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

7. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was based on the premature nature of the petition and the need for the authorities to complete the adjudication process. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of following due process and exhausting remedies available before seeking judicial intervention.