Court declines to hear challenge to customs duty notices, directs applicants to adjudication authority for fair consideration.

The court declined to entertain the writ application challenging show cause and demand notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for alleged customs duty evasion on imported goods. The court noted that the adjudication process was ongoing and directed the writ applicants to present their case before the adjudicating authority without influence from the court's decision. Emphasizing fair consideration of submissions, the court disposed of the application, allowing the writ applicants to effectively present their case before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to show cause notices and demand notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding evasion of customs duty on imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The writ application challenged show cause notices and demand notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding alleged evasion of customs duty on imported goods, specifically "Fully Fashioned High Speed Knitting Machine" under the Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy.

2. The writ applicants were called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for acts of omission and commission resulting in customs duty evasion, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the writ applicants raised various contentions challenging the legality and validity of the notices, while the Additional Solicitor General of India responded in detail to these contentions.

4. The court, however, declined to entertain the writ application as the adjudication process was already in progress, and the show cause notices were issued in June 2019. The writ applicants were granted liberty to present their case before the adjudicating authority without any influence from the High Court's decision not to entertain the application.

5. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should consider all submissions made before it and make a decision in accordance with the law. The decision not to entertain the writ application was based on the timeline of events and the ongoing adjudication process, rather than the merits of the case.

6. Ultimately, the writ application was disposed of with the direction for the writ applicants to present their case effectively before the adjudicating authority, ensuring a fair consideration of their submissions without any prejudice due to the High Court's decision not to entertain the application.

---