https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778611 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. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778611 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778611