AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with impugned notice of the respondent dated 19.10.2012 issued in F. No. CAU/DRI/CHENNAI/2/2012, quash the same, holding the impugned notice to be unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to provide the documents and details as sought for by the petitioner vide his letter dated 19.4.2012. Heard Mr. Mohana Murali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The whole confusion is created by the petitioner by seeking a series of orders which came to be passed in W.P. No. 4324 of 2012 dated 23.4.2012 to pass provisional assessment order; an amended order passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2012 in W.P. No. 4324 of 2012 on the same day to consider the claim for provisional release of goods as per Section 110 of the Customs Act; the subsequent order passed in M.P. No. 2 of 2012 in W.P. No. 4324 of 2012 on 20.6.2012 to consider the case for provisional release of goods as per Section 110A of the Customs Act and the further order passed in M.P. No. 3 of 2012 in W.P. No. 4324 of 2012 on 24.7.2012 which is an order of dismissal refusing to modify the order passed in M.P. No. 2 of 2012 in W.P. No. 4324 of 2012.
The subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 4324 of 2012 is to provisional release of goods in respect of one or other goods imported. It is stated that as against the order passed by this Court a Writ Appeal is pending.
In the present case, this Court is not concerned with any one of the proceedings as above, as the issue for consideration in the present case is a notice of intimation of personal hearing in F. No. CAU/DRI/CHENNAI/2/2012 dated 19.10.2012. The notice of personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Exports) is, consequent to the issuance of show-cause notice in F. No. VIII/48/28/2011-DRI dated 22.12.2011 in respect of goods seized alleged to be in contravention of the provision of the Customs Act. Petitioner now seeks to quash the notice of personal hearing dated 19.10.2012 which apparently is misconceived and contrary to law. Petitioner has not bothered to enclose the copy of show-cause notice in the typeset of papers. Further, the show-cause notice dated 22.12.2011 has not been challenged. The notice of personal hearing cannot be of any legal value or challenge unless the show-cause notice is challenged on merits. In any event, it is trite law that the court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India will not normally interfere in a show-cause notice.
In any event, if it is a case of confiscation of goods, the same will be in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act. The petitioner will have to establish in the proceedings, as against the goods under import, that there is no contravention. The question of release of goods is totally different from adjudication as in this case. Both cannot be clubbed together. If the goods are not released, petitioner has to work out his remedy independently. The show-cause notice proceedings cannot be stalled unless it is shown that the authority acted without jurisdiction or contrary to law.
Furthermore, the notice of intimation of personal hearing is an administrative letter and quashing that letter is of no consequence and hence the writ petition is misconceived. The proceeding, namely, the show-cause notice is not under challenge. The writ petition is totally misconceived without application of mind and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Finding no merit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.