2023 (11) TMI 920 - HC - Customs

No reply to SCN filed - Petitioner did not give any response to the show cause notice in spite of the liberty being reserved by the High Court - HELD THAT - Once when this Court had directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice, it was required for the petitioner to have responded to the same and participated in the entire show cause proceedings and thereafter, to take appropriate legal recourse available under the Act - The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Writ Court at every stage or as a matter of routine. From plain reading of the contents that is reflected in the show cause notice (Exhibit P2), it would be evidently apparent as regards the allegations levelled against the petitioner which on due consideration is of very serious nature. The instant writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly rejected, reserving the right of the petitioner to participate in the show cause proceedings and to lead appropriate evidence in support of his contentions - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves challenges to orders dated 10.10.2023, seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring a letter as illegal and opposing Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Facts and Adjudication:
The petitioner imported nut pieces from two companies, claiming exemption from duties under specific notifications. Customs authorities initially did not clear the goods, seizing them due to alleged misclassification. After laboratory tests, the goods were cleared but deemed unfit for human consumption. The petitioner then sold the products in the market. A show cause notice was issued under the Customs Act, which the petitioner challenged in two writ petitions. The High Court dismissed the petitions, reserving the petitioner's right to respond to the notice. The petitioner failed to respond, leading to a subsequent notice for a personal hearing. The High Court noted serious allegations against the petitioner, including evasion of taxes, and emphasized the need for the petitioner to participate in the show cause proceedings. As the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the Court rejected the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and present evidence.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the need for active participation in the show cause proceedings. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to present evidence and participate further, highlighting the importance of engaging in the legal process rather than approaching the Court at every stage. No costs were awarded, and any pending applications were closed.