- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice dated 4.9.2006 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jodhpur under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, to show cause as to why the provisional assessment of the second -hand paper making plant and machinery imported by the petitioner should not be finalized, enhancing the declared assessable value by Rs. 3,21,06,615/ -, and further, as to why the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,63,10,160/ - short paid on the said amount should not be recovered from them under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice provided for appropriation of the differential amount; the interest chargeable from 1.8.2002 to 23.6.2005 on the amount of differential customs duty, and further, required the noticees to show cause as to why the second -hand paper making plant and machinery imported on undervalued price as well as misdeclaring the age to be less than 10 years old, without valid import licence, be not confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice also proposed penalty to be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notices were also given to Shri N.K. Pasari, Shri S.C. Jain, Shri A.K. Sharma, Shri P.D. Agarwal, Shri S.K. Agrawal, Shri J. Nagarajan and Shri Ambreesh Chandra, to show cause, within 30 days, as to why penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed upon them, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation. The noticees were required to submit all the evidences upon which they intended to rely in support of their defence. In Para 33 of the notice, it was mentioned that the documents relied upon in the show cause notice, as per the list of documents, are
(3.) THE writ petition was filed on the grounds that the show cause notice is bad in law; violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The non -supply of the purported investigation report of US Customs has vitiated the entire proceedings, and further, that the notice is not sustainable, as the same has been issued merely for recovery of the customs duty, under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, without finalizing the provisional assessment in disregard to the provisions of law. The writ petition was admitted on an argument that a notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act has not been issued, or served, for realizing the demand.;