9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962 - Jurisdiction of the officer issuing notice - Allegation of mixed motive in issuing notice - Validity of show cause notice - Adjudication proceedings under Section 122 - Principles of natural justice - Delegation of power - Involvement of Customs officials - Distinction between offence and penalties vs. confiscation and penalties. Analysis: The writ petition sought to quash a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the petitioner and others involved in the illegal export of sandalwood logs/billets. The petitioner contended that the officer issuing the notice lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and had a mixed motive to aid Customs officials suspected of involvement. The respondents justified the notice based on specific intelligence leading to the seizure of goods. The petitioner argued that only the Collector of Customs could issue such a notice under Section 122 for goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The petitioner cited legal principles on jurisdiction and argued against delegation of power. The respondents countered, emphasizing the necessity of a show cause notice before confiscation or penalties under Section 124. The judgment analyzed the provisions of the Act, distinguishing between adjudication under Section 122 and the issuance of show cause notices under Section 124. The court considered precedents and legal arguments to determine the validity of the show cause notice. The judgment referenced a case regarding disciplinary proceedings to establish that the authority issuing the notice need not be the same as the adjudicating authority. It concluded that while the first respondent could issue the notice, adjudication must be done by the Collector of Customs as per Section 122. The court found the show cause notice valid, as it was addressed to the Collector of Customs for adjudication. The judgment aligned with a previous decision by Raju, J., and dismissed the petitioner's arguments based on legal textbooks, emphasizing the specific provisions of Section 122 governing the case. Regarding the allegation of a mixed motive in issuing the notice to avoid C.B.I. investigation, the court held that the enforcement of penalties and confiscation under Chapter 14 of the Act was distinct from Chapter 16 on offences and penalties. It cited a previous judgment to support the separation of these aspects. The court also clarified that the issuance of the show cause notice did not absolve any Customs Officer implicated by the C.B.I., nor did it affect the individuals served with notices. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional issues, validity of the show cause notice, and the distinction between enforcement procedures under different chapters of the Customs Act. It upheld the legality of the notice issued by the first respondent for adjudication by the Collector of Customs, dismissing the petition challenging the same.
|
