Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve factual disputes arising from a customs show-cause notice.

Mangali Impex Ltd. exported 27 consignments declared as calcium stearate.

After an initial laboratory report identified the goods as calcium stearate, Customs conducted a re-test; the later report identified them as calcium carbonate coated with a salt of fatty acid.

Following an investigation, the Commissioner of Customs issued a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 31 October 2003 under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

A CBI closure report was accepted by the Special Judge in 2006, but the Customs SCN remained pending.

The petitioner challenged the SCN, principally arguing that the issuing officer was not the proper officer and that the CBI proceedings undermined the basis for continuing the SCN.

1. Whether the SCN was issued by an officer lacking authority as the “proper officer” under the Customs Act.

2. Whether acceptance of the CBI closure report required the SCN to be discontinued, or whether that issue could be determined in writ proceedings before the SCN was adjudicated.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction at the SCN stage, including in light of the petitioner’s challenge to the validity and application of the amended Section 28.

Section 28 of the Customs Act governs recovery of duties not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded; Section 28(11), inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011, deems specified officers appointed under Section 4(1) before 6 July 2011 to have been proper officers for Section 28, while Explanation 2 addresses pre-assent cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 4 SCC 509, resolved the proper-officer jurisdiction issue in the Department’s favour in the circumstances considered by the High Court.

Under Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the availability of an alternative remedy does not ordinarily bar writ jurisdiction where fundamental rights are implicated, natural justice is violated, proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of an enactment is challenged.

Questions requiring factual determination and evidence are not ordinarily decided in writ proceedings at the notice stage.

The parties accepted that Canon India had resolved the jurisdictional objection concerning the proper officer in favour of the Department, so that objection did not establish a basis for writ intervention.

The SCN had not yet been adjudicated, and the underlying factual questions—including the nature and value of the exported goods, entitlement to DEPB credits, the genuineness of purchase transactions, and the effect of the CBI closure report—remained for determination by the competent authority on evidence.

The Court therefore declined to decide those matters in the writ petition and held that the case did not fall within the relevant Whirlpool exceptions at that stage.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh response to the SCN within eight weeks; the Department was directed to proceed in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner remained at liberty to pursue remedies available in law if aggrieved by the eventual decision.