Customs show cause notice challenge rejected where classification is disputed and statutory adjudication remains available.

A writ court will ordinarily not interfere with a customs show cause notice where classification of the goods is disputed and the statutory adjudicatory process remains available. The challenge to the notice under the Customs Act was therefore not entertained at the notice stage, as the petitioner could respond before the competent authority and obtain adjudication in accordance with law. A separate plea based on absence of pre-consultation hearing and natural justice also failed, because there was no specific pleading that such hearing had not been given. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was thus declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the customs show cause notice was maintainable at the notice stage in view of the disputed classification issue and the availability of statutory remedies; (ii) Whether absence of a pre-consultation hearing and alleged violation of natural justice justified interference under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the customs show cause notice was maintainable at the notice stage in view of the disputed classification issue and the availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The challenge arose from a demand-cum-show cause notice issued under Sections 124 and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on a classification dispute concerning the subject goods. The dispute required adjudication by the competent authority on whether the goods fell under the classifications asserted by the petitioner or under Chapter 87 as proposed by the department. The availability of a reply to the notice and adjudication in accordance with law weighed against immediate writ intervention.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined and the challenge to the notice was not entertained at this stage.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of a pre-consultation hearing and alleged violation of natural justice justified interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition did not contain a specific pleading that no pre-consultation hearing had been afforded. In the absence of such pleading, the Court treated the grievance as a matter that could be placed before the respondents in the statutory process and found no basis for extraordinary intervention. The alleged natural justice violation was therefore not treated as a jurisdictional ground warranting writ relief.

Conclusion: The plea based on pre-consultation hearing and natural justice was rejected for purposes of writ interference.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was left to respond to the show cause notice before the competent authority, which was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not interfere with a customs show cause notice based on a disputed classification issue where the statutory adjudicatory process remains available, and a plea of violation of pre-consultation natural justice must be specifically pleaded and made out before extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked.

---