2021 (4) TMI 818 - HC - Customs

Validity of SCN - Undervaluation - violation of intellectual property rights of certain third parties - allegation is that some of the documents that find place in the show cause have not been served on the writ petitioner - reliance placed on the documents other than the ones set out in annexure A of the show cause notice or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT - There is a well known distinction between the documents that are 'referred to' and the documents that are 'relied on'. In the show cause notice, the authority for the purpose of covering the trajectory of events or for the purpose of narration may refer to certain documents but it is not incumbent on the authority to make available every document, which is referred to in the show cause notice. Only those documents on which reliance will be made in the adjudication will have to be supplied to the noticee. The petitioner's counsel strongly asserts that the document No.3 in annexure A is not the manifest filed by the petitioner but one filed by a third party. If that be so, it is a point to be canvassed at the time of adjudication. The petitioner has come to the Court prematurely - As of now, there are no violation of principles of natural justice. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Allegations of violation of intellectual property rights and under-valuation against a steamer agent.
2. Petitioner's claim of not being served with all documents mentioned in the show cause notice.
3. Interpretation of whether documents referred to in the show cause notice need to be provided to the noticee.
4. Conflict between a Single Judge's decision and a Division Bench's decision regarding the requirement to provide all documents at the show cause notice stage.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a steamer agent accused of violating intellectual property rights and under-valuation. The petitioner denies the allegations and claims not all documents mentioned in the show cause notice were served. The petitioner insists on receiving specific documents to prepare for a personal hearing.

2. The petitioner's counsel argues that certain documents, including a manifest filed by a third party, were not submitted by the petitioner. The respondent opposes the prayer, citing a Division Bench decision that documents not relied upon need not be provided before adjudication. The learned standing counsel confirms reliance only on documents listed in the show cause notice.

3. The judge distinguishes between documents referred to and those relied upon in the adjudication process. The Division Bench's decision emphasizes that noticees are entitled to documents relied upon, not all mentioned. The judge upholds this distinction and dismisses the petitioner's claim of not receiving all documents.

4. Despite a Single Judge's supportive orders in similar cases, the judge follows the Division Bench's decision, obliging noticees to raise concerns during adjudication. The petitioner's premature court approach is noted, with the judge finding no violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner is directed to participate in the personal hearing and present all contentions.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to attend the personal hearing and raise all contentions during adjudication. The conflicting decisions between a Single Judge and a Division Bench highlight the importance of following the latter's ruling in similar cases.