2023 (6) TMI 1109 - SCH - Customs

Dismissal of Customs Act challenge; seek Tribunal remedy. Amendment request denied, except for legal principles violation. Supreme Court allows review.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the pre-deposit demand under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, advising the petitioner to seek ... Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - demand for pre-deposit within the meaning of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition and liberty to file a review. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review but limited only to the aspect about the alleged violation of the principle of law laid down in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT]. SLP dismissed as withdrawn. Issues:1. Challenge to the demand for pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Amendment of the writ petition to question the order initially sought to be impugned before the Appellate Tribunal.3. High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and reservation of liberty to approach the Tribunal.4. Alleged unauthorized issuance of the show cause notice.5. Permission to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to file a review limited to the alleged violation of legal principles.Analysis:1. The petitioner initially challenged the demand for pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. However, during the proceedings, the petition was amended to question the order initially intended for the Appellate Tribunal's scrutiny. The High Court, in its impugned order, found the challenge to the pre-deposit demand meritless and advised the petitioner to seek remedy through the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition while reserving liberty for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.2. The petitioner's senior counsel highlighted a crucial aspect regarding the alleged unauthorized issuance of the show cause notice, citing a previous decision by the Supreme Court. The counsel argued that the High Court failed to consider this significant point in its order, indicating a potential violation of legal principles. Despite this argument, the impugned order was upheld in all other aspects except for the alleged violation of legal principles as per the cited case law.3. Following the arguments presented, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition, with the intention to file a review limited to the alleged violation of legal principles highlighted during the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a review solely on the aspect related to the alleged violation of legal principles, as indicated by the petitioner's senior counsel.4. Additionally, the Supreme Court provided the petitioner with the liberty to approach the Court against the impugned order if the review process proves unsuccessful, once again limited to the specific legal point raised during the proceedings. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the various legal issues addressed by the Supreme Court, including challenges to pre-deposit demands, amendments to petitions, unauthorized issuance of notices, and the review process based on legal principles.