TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner by the Deputy Commissioner of Customer (F.S.E.Z.) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be made liable for anti dumping duty chargeable in respect of the goods sold by the petitioner from Palta Special Economic Zone to third parties under domestic tariff area. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's Company has been licensed as private bond warehousing cum-in-bond manufacturing Unit under Sections 58 and 65 of the Customers Act, 1962, a unit at Falta Special Economic Zone since 2000. The said zone was also declared as a warehousing station Under Section 9 of the Customs Act by the Central Government. The petitioner in usual course of business imported various items for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Authorities termed clearance of goods sold by the petitioner under Domestic Tariff Area in favour of Enfield Industries Limited, accordingly, the liable to pay duty with regard to such goods was of Enfield Industries Limited. In the event of any duty not lavied on such goods cleared in favour of the Enfield Industries Limited, the petitioner can not be held liable for the same. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the arbitrary, unreasonable wrongful and illegal action of the respondents, complained of, the petitioner preferred this application on the grounds that the action of the respondents in issuing the show cause notice dated July 22, 2004 and in seeking to make the petitioner liable for the duty short levied and interest the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter No.FEPZ/LIC/P-10/97/15318 dated March 14, 2002 and FEPZ/LIC/P- 10/97/74 dated April 2, 2002 for domestic tariff area sale of the said stock by the petitioner. In view of the said permission petitioner sold and delivered the stock to Enfield Industries Limited, who cleared the goods on payment of duty as determined by the Customs Authorities. In view of the provisions of Customs Act a person seeking clearance of goods from warehouse is to file De-bonding Bill of Entry for home consumption and to the liability to pay the duty is on the importer. The Enfield industries Limited are liable to pay the duty in regard to the goods so cleared by them under any case. The petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. The action of the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleged in the show cause notice is absolutely factual aspects. Writ Court has got no jurisdiction. The writ is not maintainable as no show cause as asked for has yet been filed and as such there is no order passed in pursuance to the show cause by the petitioner. The petitioner should have response to the show cause notice and should have submits whatever he likes in support of his show cause and in pursuance of such show cause notice, in fact, no cause of action arose the show cause notice has been served complying the provisions and applying proper discretion by the Authority concern. In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the validity/liquidity and propriety of a show cause notice issued and served upon them by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was equivalent to the anti-dumping duty. On such circumstances the authority having its competence to raise any legitimate and valid demand, in excise of powers conferred under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in terms of B-17 bond requested the writ petitioner to explain by orally or written statement and to show cause to the Commissioner of customs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why an amount of Rs. 69,49,635/- (Rupees sixty nine lakh fourty nine thousand six hundred and thirty five only) being the customs duty which is equivalent to anti-dumping duty should not be demanded from the writ petitioner. The background of the case of writ petitioner that the writ petitioner imported various items ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of law as well as facts which required to be adjudicated by the Authority concern upon submission of representation to the show cause notice. There are provisions in the law to move before higher forum if the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision whatever may be taken by the Authority concern. In a case decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T 234 (Calcutta), it has been observed that show cause notice issued by Statutory Authority may be challenged before Writ Court only on ground of where no case have been made out against the petitioner. Otherwise, adjudicating authority is to find and decide all questions including question of facts. High Court should not enquire into the corre....