2016 (9) TMI 671 - HC - Customs

Application to issue writ of mandamus - direction to the respondent to provide documents / informations, as requested for by the petitioner - SCN - Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of PVC Flex banners - import from Malaysia or from China - copies of documents - mahazars - Held that - during the course of adjudication, if the petitioner s contention is that, certain documents recovered from the office premises of those three companies are relevant, it would always be open to the petitioner to raise such a plea before the Adjudicating Officer and that cannot be a reason to submit a proper reply to the show cause notice and participate in the adjudicating proceedings - at this stage, the petitioner cannot insist upon the documents, which they now seek for, which are admittedly not recovered from their business premises - the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Petitioner is directed to submit their reply to the show cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after which the respondent shall fix the date of personal hearing and proceed to complete the adjudication, in accordance with law. petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus for documents, Allegations in show cause notice under Customs Act, Import of PVC Flex banners, Request for specific documents, Dispute over documents provided, Representation to DRI for documents, Request for permission to cross-examine, Multiple correspondences, Inability to submit reply without documents, Documents recovered under Mahazars, Dismissal of writ petition, Direction to submit reply within two weeks.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to provide requested documents/information related to a show cause notice issued under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolved around the import of PVC Flex banners, with the petitioner claiming the goods were imported from Malaysia, while the Department contended they were of Chinese origin. The petitioner's representation requested copies of specific documents, but the Department replied that the documents had already been supplied along with the show cause notice. Subsequent correspondences highlighted the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the documents provided and their request for additional documents from specific companies. The respondent suggested approaching the DRI for unrelated documents, leading to the petitioner's plea for copies and permission to cross-examine individuals. Despite various representations and a notice of personal hearing, the petitioner rushed to the Court before submitting a reply to the show cause notice.

The Court noted that the requested documents were recovered under Mahazars from the premises of three companies, not the petitioner's business premises. As those companies and their partners/directors were also parties in the show cause notice, the Court held that the petitioner could raise the relevance of those documents during adjudication but could not insist on them for submitting a proper reply at that stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the petitioner to submit their reply within two weeks from the date of the order, after which the respondent would proceed with the adjudication process. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must participate in the adjudicating proceedings in accordance with the law, despite the denial of the requested documents. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.