The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 while a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was pending. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to respond to the notice.
Petition dismissed; liberty to respond to the notice to show cause.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
asn 1
WP-9920.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9920 OF 2011
Vidisha Exico and anr.
..Petitioners.
versus
Union of India and ors.
..Respondents.
Mr. A.M.Sethna with Ms. T .S. Jani for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rao for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
6 February 2012.
P.C. :
Since at the present stage only a notice to show cause has been issued to the Petitioner on 30 August 2011 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that anti dumping duty amounting to Rs. 6,33,840/- was erroneously short levied, we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner would be at liberty to respond to the notice to show cause and to raise all the proper contentions in response. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition on that ground. The submissions urged in this proceeding may be urged in response to this notice. 2 There shall be no order as to costs.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should exercise jurisdiction before the show-cause notice is responded.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vidisha Exico
Union of India
D.Y. Chandrachud
M.S. Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
