Court rejects premature petition challenging goods seizure by Excise Department under Customs Act, 1962.

The court declined admission of the petition challenging the seizure of goods by the Excise Department, citing prematurity due to ongoing proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Emphasizing that a writ petition at the show cause notice stage is premature unless a final adverse order is issued, the court relied on Supreme Court precedent to reject the petition. The court held that the show cause notice stage does not violate party rights, and entertaining the petition prematurely was not appropriate, in line with the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to seizure memo based on 'Panchanama' dated 19-05-2016, Prematurity of the petition due to initiation of proceedings under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a petition against the seizure of goods by the Excise Department based on a 'Panchanama' dated 19-05-2016. The respondent argued that proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 had been initiated against the petitioner, providing a mechanism for resolving the dispute. The respondent contended that the petition was premature. The court noted that the petitioner could reply to the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court highlighted that a writ petition against a mere show cause notice is usually premature as it does not give rise to a cause of action unless issued by a person lacking jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a writ lies when a final order adversely affecting a party is passed, not at the show cause notice stage. Therefore, the court declined admission of the petition based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment.

In conclusion, the court held that entertaining the writ petition at the show cause notice stage was not appropriate, following the Supreme Court's guidance on the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the rights of a party unless a final order imposing punishment or adversely affecting a party is passed. Therefore, the court found the petition premature and declined admission.

---