9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving purchased scrips from the exporters are all questions of fact which can be agitated only before the adjudicating authority and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether Section 28 or Section 28-AAA would stand attracted, is also not a pure question of law, but involves adjudication into facts. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court does not propose to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice as if it is done, it would be doing so at the very threshold, which is impermissible - The petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to place all the materials and it is well open to the petitioner to raise the legal issues which according to them, are wholly in their favour, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned notice is without jurisdiction. Further, the impugned notice is vague and arbitrary and does not state which part of Section 28 is made applicable to the petitioner, which shows the hesitation on the part of the second respondent to proceed against the importers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Section 28-AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, submitted that the said provision would be attracted only in cases where an instrument issued to a person has been obtained by him by means of collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, for the purposes of the Customs Act or the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 by such person or his agent or employee and such instrument is utilised under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablish before this Court that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner such as collusion, fraud or misstatement with that of the exporter in whose favour scrips were issued, the question of invoking Section 28-AAA would not arise and therefore, the show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. Further it is submitted that if such is the factual position, the question of invoking extended period of limitation also does not arise and it is one more ground to hold that the impugned show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the respondents on the above submissions. 7. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that the impugned proceedings is only a show-cause notice and not an order. The point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted sufficient opportunity to place all the materials and it is well open to the petitioner to raise the legal issues which according to them, are wholly in their favour, and also contest the jurisdictional point before the adjudicating authority by submitting a reply. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and quash the show-cause notice at the very threshold. 9. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit their reply to the impugned show-cause notice raising all factual and legal issues and contest the matter before the adjudicating authority. No costs. Consequently, the connected misce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
