Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
M/s.GREEN GLOBAL LOGISTICS – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Commissioner of Customs(General) – Respondent
W.P. No. 23042 of 2022 | W.M.P. No. 22059 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.K.Jayaraj
For the Respondents: Mr.Mohanamurali, SPC
The court emphasized that procedural challenges should be resolved with the administrative authority first, limiting judicial intervention without established jurisdictional errors.
Headnote:(A) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Regulation 17 - Writ petition against show cause notice issued under Regulation 17(1) - Petitioner's contention that notice was barred by limitation as issued beyond 90 days - Respondents provided documentation supporting timely issuance within 90 days - Petitioner's claim of ignorance of offence report and alleged fabrication not established - Court held that challenges to procedural error should be raised before respondents first - Writ petition disposed directing submission of a reply. (Paras 1, 4, 6)
(B) Judicial Interference in Administrative Actions - Court's discretion in interfering with administrative actions limited - When valid documents affirm timely notice is provided, challenge lacks merit - Statutory provisions dictate procedural adherence, which respondents must evaluate. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an issued show cause notice claiming it was beyond the statutory timeline, while respondents produced evidence indicating compliance with the period. Allegations of notice fabrication were also raised but not substantiated.
Findings of Court:
The court mandated a response from the petitioner to the notice and indicated that the respondents must review all contentions raised before proceeding with the inquiry report.
Issues: Whether the show cause notice was issued within the permissible timeframe as per Regulations and the necessity for the petitioner to substantiate their claim of improper issuance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and established that present challenges should be addressed directly with the issuing authority before resorting to judicial review.
Result: Writ petition disposed; the petitioner directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to show cause notice's timing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. directive for submission of a reply to the notice (Para 3) |
| 3. court's stance on jurisdiction under article 226 (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice issued under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 . The petitioner contends that the impugned show cause notice dated 18.07.2022 has been issued beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the offence report and it is contrary to Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR, 2018 and hence, it is barred by limitation.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed before this Court the offence report dated 31.03.2022 which resulted in issuance of the impugned show cause notice dated 18.07.2022. He would submit that the offence report dated 31.03.2022 was received by the Customs Department on 19.04.2022 and therefore, the impugned show cause notice dated 18.07.2022 is well within the period of 90 days. He would further submit that the impugned show cause notice dated 18.07.2022 is therefore well within the period of 90 days from the date of offence report and therefore, the same has been issued only in accordance with Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware about the issuance of the offence report dated 31.03.2022 by the Customs Department. According to the petitioner, the last page of the show cause notice dated 18.07.2022 has been fabricated by the respondents to suit their convenience.
4. When the respondents have placed before this Court documents to support their case that the offence report dated 31.03.2022 and subsequent show cause notice dated 18.07.2022 which is well within the period of 90 days from the date of offence report, the question of entertaining this writ petition challenging the show cause notice does not arise. Though the petitioner may contend that the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of 90 days from the date of offence report, they have to establish the same before the respondents through their reply. However, the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition will have to be considered by the respondents before submitting the enquiry report. Only when the show cause notice has been issued contrary to the statutory provisions and has been issued without authority under law and without jurisdiction and has pre-determined the issue, the question of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will arise. The case on hand does not fall on any of the above mentioned categories.
5. In the case on hand, since the respondents have produced documents before this Court to show that the show cause notice was issued within a period of 90 days from the date of the offence report, though the said contention has been disputed by the petitioner, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition at this stage. Necessarily, the petitioner will have to submit a reply to the show cause notice stating whatever contentions they have raised in this writ petition and the said contention will have to be considered by the respondents before submitting the enquiry report.
