TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... part of the said investigation, had examined the consignment imported by M/s. MAXX Power Tools Pvt.Ltd., vide Bill of Entry No.4925207 dated 14.10.2011 filed with Chennai Customs. The said Bill of Entry was filed by another Customs broker, M/s. Pluto Shipping & Logistics Pvt.Ltd., Chennai. On detailed examination, it was found that there was mis-declaration regarding the quantity of the goods imported and on this score, the importer was summoned for questioning in terms of Sec.108 of the Customs Act, 1962. During the investigation, the officers of the respondent also conducted investigation into the imports made by M/s. MAXX Power Tools Pvt.Ltd., where the Bills of Entry were filed through M/s. Vee Vee Clearing & Forwarding Pvt.Ltd.,. In total, seven Bills of entry were filed using the customs broker licence of M/s.Vee Vee Clearing & Forwarding Pvt.Ltd.,. The petitioner was summoned for questioning under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, on 20.4.2015 and his detailed statement was recorded. After a month, he received the show cause notice dated 8.5.2015 impugned in the Writ Petition, issued by the respondent, calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the show cause notice has prejudged and pre-determined his guilt, he preferred Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Both the aforesaid Writ Petitions were heard at length by a Writ Court of this High Court and were allowed by a common order dated 18.2.2016 holding that the first appellant/first respondent in the Writ Petitions issued the show cause notices with pre-judged mind and pre-determined the guilt of the petitioners. However, the respondents in the Writ Petitions were given liberty to issue show cause notices afresh, if so advised, but strictly, in accordance with law. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Writ Court, the appellants/revenue are before this Court with these Writ Appeals. 6. Assailing the order of the Writ Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned single Judge has erroneously quashed the show cause notice and the learned Judge ought to have seen that in the impugned show cause notice, the first respondent/ appellant herein has simply set forth the sequence of facts detected during the course of investigation and also set forth the voluntary statements given by the witnesses, which a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.), has held as follows:- "31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. 32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive ste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to Paragraphs 24 and 31 of the impugned show cause notice before the Writ Court to contend that the guilt of the writ petitioners/respondents herein were pre-judged and pre-determined. Paragraph 5 of the order of the Writ Court dated 18.2.2016, is usefully extracted hereunder:- 5. Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon paragraph Nos. 24 and 31 of the show cause notices dated 08.05.2015 wherein, the first respondent has stated as follows:- "24.As per para 23 supra the reasoning advanced by the importer is contrary to what has been stated by the CHA/s Cs. Hence it can be concluded that to clear the imported consignment by mis-declaration of description coupled with 3 undervaluation, port-hopping has been resorted to by the importer in collusion with the CHAs/CBs. ..." "31. In the instant case, the investigation done by CZU-DRI has revealed that M/sMaxx Power Tools Pvt. Ltd whose Directors Shri Fakri Master, Shabbir Stuterwala with the aid of M/s.Pluto Shipping & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Pluto Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd and Vee Vee Clearing & Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. have acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to be considered by this Court in the light of the following decision. 15. Moreover, a Writ against a show cause notice is not maintainable. (I) In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held as follows: "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 33], Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. [AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa and Ors. v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and Ors. [2001(10) SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. [AIR 1987 SC 943] etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that, at that stage, the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to ....