Court Extends Deadline in Customs Act Case, Orders Jurisdiction Review and Allows Provisional Goods Release Application.

The HC addressed a challenge to a show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, regarding jurisdiction. The petitioner argued the import was "Free" and missed the response deadline. The Court extended the response time by two weeks and instructed the adjudicating authority to consider the jurisdiction issue, providing a reasoned order within four weeks. The petitioner could raise all points during the hearing. The Court directed no further proceedings until a jurisdiction decision was made. The petitioner could apply for provisional release of goods, which the authority must consider, despite the goods being claimed as prohibited by the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962 on grounds of jurisdiction.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an impugned show cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Port) under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the item imported is "Free" and the time to respond to the notice had expired. The Court held that the petitioner should have responded to the notice and made a case before the adjudicating authority. The Court extended the time for the petitioner to reply to the notice by two weeks and directed the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose of the reply on the issue of jurisdiction. The authority was instructed to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four weeks. No further proceedings were to take place until a final order was passed on the issue of jurisdiction.

During the hearing, the petitioner was allowed to raise all points regarding the show cause notice. If the petitioner applied for provisional release of the goods, the adjudicating authority was to consider the application irrespective of the final order on the show cause notice. The respondent's advocate mentioned that the goods in question were prohibited and could not be released. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

---