Writ challenge to customs notices is premature; AIFTA verification does not bar statutory scrutiny of preferential duty claims.

Writ petitions challenging customs show cause notices were treated as premature because a writ court will ordinarily not interfere at the notice stage when the statutory adjudicatory remedy remains available. The Court also found that territorial nexus existed in most petitions through import activity, the petitioners' location, or notice issuance, though one petition lacked such nexus. On the tariff issue, treaty-based origin verification under AIFTA was held to be facilitative rather than a mandatory precondition, and it did not curtail customs authorities' statutory power to scrutinise preferential duty claims, seek documents, and examine origin and regional value content under domestic law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were maintainable and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. (ii) Whether the customs authorities could issue the show cause notices and examine the claim for preferential tariff treatment under AIFTA without first completing treaty-based verification.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were maintainable and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The petitions were directed against show cause notices and the Court noted the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked against a mere notice when the statutory adjudicatory mechanism remains available. On territorial jurisdiction, the Court found that in most matters some part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through import at Delhi ICDs, the location of petitioners, or issuance of notices from Delhi, though one petition did not satisfy that nexus. Even so, the Court proceeded to decide the batch together because the principal objection was prematurity and the availability of the adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained and the petitions were held to be premature, with one petition also lacking territorial nexus.

Issue (ii): Whether the customs authorities could issue the show cause notices and examine the claim for preferential tariff treatment under AIFTA without first completing treaty-based verification.

Analysis: The Court held that the treaty and its operational procedures do not oust the statutory powers of customs authorities under domestic law. It accepted that the verification mechanism uses permissive language and is facilitative, not a mandatory precondition in every case before issuing a notice. The Court also relied on the post-2020 statutory framework under the Customs Act and the related customs rules to hold that the authorities could scrutinise origin claims, seek supporting documents, and proceed where the material raised doubts about the origin and regional value content of the goods.

Conclusion: The customs authorities were held competent to issue the notices and examine the preferential duty claim, and the treaty-based challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The batch of writ petitions was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue their defences before the adjudicating authority, which was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition will normally not lie against a mere show cause notice, and treaty-based origin verification under AIFTA does not curtail the statutory jurisdiction of customs authorities to scrutinise preferential tariff claims under domestic law.

---