9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of show cause notices for action proposed against petitioners. 2. Legal permissibility of action for confiscation, recovery of customs duty, penalty, and interest. 3. Necessity of cancellation of exemption certificate before issuing show cause notice. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the jurisdiction of show cause notices, emphasizing that such notices provide an opportunity for the receiving party to present their case and oppose proposed actions. The court notes that intervening at this stage would disrupt the statutory process initiated by the respondents, vested with statutory powers. 2. The legal permissibility of proposed actions for confiscation, recovery of customs duty, penalty, and interest is examined in light of the repeal of Notification No. 64/88 under the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the repealing notification lacked a saving clause, rendering the initiated actions impermissible. Citing precedents, the court distinguishes cases where specific provisions permit actions post-repeal, emphasizing that the source of power for recovery lies in the Customs Act, not the repealed notification. 3. The judgment delves into the necessity of canceling an exemption certificate before issuing a show cause notice. Referring to a previous ruling, it is established that recovery proceedings should follow certificate cancellation. However, the court notes that the certificate was recalled post-notice issuance, making the notice effective. The court rejects the argument that the notice should be quashed solely on this ground, highlighting that the recall, unchallenged by the petitioner, validates the notice. Emphasizing the futility of setting aside the notice, the court dismisses the petition without costs. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the validity of the show cause notices, clarifies the legal basis for proposed actions, and underscores the importance of compliance with statutory procedures in customs matters.
|
