KAMALESH KUMAR JAIN; SURESH KUMAR JAIN; ARPIT JAIN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL; COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to a show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,(DRI) dated 28.02.2014, under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No.18888 of 2016, is a proprietor of M/s.Kumar Distributors engaged in business trading of PVC flex banners and the other Writ Petitioner Suresh Kumar Jain is his brother. The DRI received specific intelligence that various Indian importers have been importing PVC flex banners of Chinese origin through Malaysia with the help of a person at Mumbai. Search was conducted at Mumbai and on further investigation, it was found that M/s.Kumar Distributors, petitioner in W.P.No.18888 of 2016, have imported PVC flex banners of chinese origin from the said agency at Mumbai and accordingly, search was conducted in the petitioner's premises as well as in their godown. A statement was recorded from the petitioner in W.P.No.18888 of 2016 on 23.07.2013, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, apart from statements being recorded from the employees of the Writ Petitioner and the persons concerned with the agency at Mumbai. In the impugned show cause notice, all the statements have been referred to including the statement of the petitioner in W.P.No.18887 of 2016, and on a perusal of the same, it is seen that the modus operandi adopted has been spelt out. The petitioners have challenged the impugned show cause notice on the ground that in several paragraphs of the show cause notice, the respondent has pre-judged the matter and submitting a reply to the impugned show cause notice is an empty formality. In this regard, the learned counsel elaborately referred to the various paragraphs in the show cause notice with a view to demonstrate that the authority has pre-decided the issues. By referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. UOI, 2011 266 ELT 422, it is submitted that the respondent being a quasi judicial authority should act with an open mind and a person who reads a show cause notice should get a feeling that the reply will not be an empty formality and he will get effective opportunity to rebut the allegations and prove his innocence. Therefore, it is submitted that in the impugned show cause notice, the respondent has pre-decided the matter and therefore, the petitioners are justified in approaching this Court to quash the show cause notice. The learned counsel referred to the Customs Notification No.82 of 2011, dated 25.08.2011 and the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Government of Members States of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic if India] Rules, 2009 and referred to Rule No.13 and annexure 3 under Rule 13, to substantiate the case factually.

(3.) I have heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents on the above submissions.