Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 664 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTAnti- Dumping Duty – challenge to show cause notice - Goods Sold to SEZ - Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he 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 - Held that:- 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 being the customs duty which was equivalent to anti-dumping duty should not be demanded from the writ petitioner. Petitioner imported various items for the purpose of using the same for its manufacturing purpose and during manufacturing certain imported materials were left out and could not be used for manufacturing in the said unit of the petitioner - Petitioner made applications before the Development Commissioner seeking permission for sale of the said goods to the indigenous buyers - Petitioner urged that the said permission was subject to payment of duty of customs by the third party purchaser - Admittedly, petitioner in pursuance to the permission granted by the Development Commissioner sold and delivered it to one third party buyer - Petitioner had claimed that the third party purchaser cleared the goods on payment on duties payable to customs as determined by the Customs Authorities. The petitioner had not taken any steps to appear before the Customs Authorities and submits their representation either orally or in writing/ they straight way had come before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the notices - The authority concerned had not yet taken any action in pursuance to their notice served upon the present petition - Both the parties raised some points involving 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 were provisions in the law to move before higher forum if the petitioner was aggrieved with the decision whatever may be taken by the Authority concern. [I.T.C. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA 1988(10) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA] - 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 was to find and decide all questions including question of facts - High Court should not enquire into the correctness of facts - Ordinarily a writ petition was not maintainable against a show cause notice in as much as when a show cause notice was issued, the party gets an opportunity to place his case before the Authority concerned and there was elaborate procedure by way of an appeal and the revision against such order passed in such proceeding - it was not the proper stage for a writ court to interfere into the alleged matter as the authority concerned had made out a prima facie case which required to be adjudicated - So writ court should not intervene into the matter on allegations of incorrect and illegal inferences of facts and law. Writ petition dismissed.
|