TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Customs Notice: Importance of Addressing Show-Cause Notice</h1> <h3>M/s. Majestic Impex, Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port (Exports),</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice of intimation of personal hearing in a customs case, emphasizing that the challenge was ... Notice of intimation of personal hearing - held that:- 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. Further, 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 without application of mind and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed - writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Issues:Challenging a notice of intimation of personal hearing in a customs case.Analysis:The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge a notice of intimation of personal hearing issued by the respondent in a customs matter. The confusion arose from a series of orders passed previously related to the provisional release of goods in a separate case. The court clarified that the present case solely concerned the notice of personal hearing and not the previous orders regarding goods release. The petitioner failed to enclose the show-cause notice challenging the goods' seizure, which rendered the challenge to the personal hearing notice misconceived and contrary to law. The court emphasized that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not usual in show-cause notices unless jurisdictional issues are raised.The court highlighted that if the matter involves confiscation of goods, it falls under Section 124 of the Customs Act, and the petitioner must establish no contravention during the proceedings. The release of goods and adjudication are distinct processes that cannot be combined. The court stated that challenging an administrative letter like the notice of personal hearing without contesting the show-cause notice's merits is legally futile. The court dismissed the writ petition as misconceived and lacking merit, emphasizing that the show-cause notice proceedings should continue unless jurisdictional or legal violations are proven. The court concluded by dismissing the petition without imposing any costs and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
