Court dismisses challenges to Customs Act notices, emphasizes statutory remedies, delays not tolerated.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging show cause notices under the Customs Act, emphasizing that courts should not interfere at this stage and petitioners should utilize statutory remedies. The petitioners' argument of limitation was rejected due to their delay tactics. Allegations of fraud involving fake DEPB licenses were noted, with the court deferring judgment on the fraud issue for further investigation. The petitioners were directed to respond to the notices within four weeks. The court ruled against quashing the notices, allowing the respondents to proceed lawfully. The petitions were dismissed without costs, and related petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court to entertain petitions against show cause notices.
2. Validity and limitation period of show cause notices under Section 28(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Allegations of fraud and use of fake DEPB licences.
4. Availability of alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court to entertain petitions against show cause notices:

The core issue is whether the Writ Court should entertain petitions challenging show cause notices. It is well-settled law that High Courts and the Supreme Court have consistently held that courts should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to test the correctness of show cause notices, except in cases where the court or tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction, for enforcement of a fundamental right, or where there has been a violation of a principle of natural justice. The court cited several precedents, including L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Limited and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. C. Durai, which emphasize that writ petitions should not be entertained when there is an alternative remedy available unless there is a compelling reason.

2. Validity and limitation period of show cause notices under Section 28(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The petitioners argued that the show cause notices issued under Section 28(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, are barred by limitation. The court noted that the show cause notices were issued beyond the six-month period specified under Section 28(b). However, the court also observed that the petitioners had previously challenged the demand notices and obtained a stay, which should be excluded from the limitation period. The court held that since the petitioners did not mention the stay period in their affidavit, the plea of limitation is not available to them. The court emphasized that the petitioners should not be allowed to take advantage of delays caused by their own actions.

3. Allegations of fraud and use of fake DEPB licences:

The case involved allegations that the petitioners used fake and forged DEPB licences to import goods duty-free, causing a significant revenue loss. The court highlighted that the petitioners obtained these licences from a broker, and the licences were later found to be fake. The court referred to its previous judgment in S. Chellakkannu v. The Tahsildar, Karaikkudi, Sivaganga District, which held that when fraud and deceit are brought to the court's notice, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. The court stated that whether the petitioners were parties to the fraud or not cannot be decided in these writ petitions and must be determined by the respondents through further investigation.

4. Availability of alternative remedies:

The court reiterated that it is a general principle that High Courts should not interfere at the stage of show cause notices, and parties should resort to the statutory machinery provided under the Act. The court cited several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support this principle. The court also noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy to respond to the show cause notices and raise their objections, including the plea of limitation.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that there is no merit in quashing the show cause notices. The petitioners were given four weeks to file their objections to the show cause notices, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law. The court emphasized that the petitioners could raise the plea of limitation before the respondents, who would deal with all points in accordance with law. The petitions were dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---