Writ interference at show cause notice stage declined in customs exemption dispute over AIFTA verification issues.

At the show cause notice stage in a customs dispute over denial of AIFTA exemption for imported set top boxes, the Madras HC declined writ intervention under Article 226 because the objections raised required factual and jurisdictional adjudication by the customs authority in the first instance. The Court noted that the noticee had an opportunity to file objections and that issues such as verification procedure, rejection of certificates of origin, valuation, and alleged suppression had to be examined on merits by the adjudicating authority. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was relegated to pursue objections before the authority, which was directed to act independently in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was maintainable at the stage of notice and whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interdict the proposed customs adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a customs show cause notice issued in relation to denial of AIFTA exemption benefits on imported set top boxes. The Court noted the settled restraint on interference under Article 226 at the stage of a show cause notice, particularly where the noticee has an opportunity to submit objections and the adjudicating authority can examine the factual and jurisdictional issues in the first instance. The Court found that the objections raised involved matters requiring factual adjudication, including the alleged non-compliance with the verification procedure, the validity of rejection of certificates of origin, valuation issues, alleged suppression, and other matters touching the merits of the customs proceedings. The Court also distinguished the reliance placed on earlier precedent concerning the efficacy of the treaty mechanism, observing that the present challenge was to the notice and the alleged non-compliance with the verification steps, which was a different controversy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained at the show cause notice stage and the petitioner was relegated to submit objections before the adjudicating authority, which was directed to proceed independently in accordance with law.

---