S.R.Brahmbhatt, J. - Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 at Annexure C hereto and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto ;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay and suspend the operation and implementation of the Notification No.44/2011- Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 at Annexure C hereto and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent no.4 from proceeding further in regard to the adjudication of the demands raised by way of the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto.

(D) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para C and D above be granted.

(E) Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted."

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. The facts in brief as could be culled-out from the memo of the petition and annexures deserve to be set-out as under in order to appreciate the controversy.

3.1 The petitioner no.1 is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of import and trading of watermelon seeds. The petitioner no.2 is a partner of the petitioner. That during the period from 2009 to 2013, the petitioner had imported watermelon seeds through Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhavasheva, Maharashtra on numerous occasions and had filed various Bills of Entry in respect of the same declaring the value thereof, which Bills of Entry were duly assessed by the customs authorities at Nhavasheva at the time of clearance. The respondent no.3, an authority in the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of the DRI by certain investigations conducted and statements recorded in 2014, issued a show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 to the petitioners proposing redetermination of the value of the goods thus imported under the provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and imposition of so-called differential customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/- as also interest and penalty, and also proposing confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111 of the. By virtue of the said notice the petitioners were called upon to show cause to the respondent no.4. The petitioner has made voluntary payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in August 2014, which is noted in the show cause notice.

3.2 The petitioner filed detailed reply dated 11th February 2015 on merits, along with documents before the respondent no.4, disputing the allegations made in the said show cause notice. The petitioner at that time not aware of the legal position and controversy regarding jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notice and therefore its reply did not contain the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to issue the show cause notice. The petitioner recently came to know of an instruction dated 29th June 2016 issued by the respondent no.2 mentioning that the Honble Delhi High Court had passed an order dated 3 rd May 2016 holding that Section 28(11) cannot validate show cause notices or proceedings pursuant thereto in relation to non-levy, shortlevy or erroneous refund for the period prior to 8th April 2011 if such show cause notices are issued by officers who are not proper officers as per Section 2 (34) of theand further mentioning that the respondent no.2 had decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Honble Supreme Court challenging the said order of the Honble Delhi High Court. The respondent no.2 has instructed field formations to transfer all the show cause notices issued by DRI and such other authorities prior to 6th July 2011 to the Call Book till disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. The respondent no.2 has directed that such show cause notices be kept in abeyance till disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. The petitioner raising the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to issue the show cause notice and inviting attention to the said instruction issued by the respondent no.2, wrote a letter dated 27th September 2016 to the respondent no.4 and requested to keep the matter in abeyance till the issue is decided by the Honble Supreme Court. To which the respondent no.4 orally informed the petitioners that he would not keep the matter pending till the decision of the Honble Supreme Court and would proceed with the matter on merits on the next date of hearing i.e. 11th November 2016.

3.3 The present case involves an issue of law as regards the jurisdiction of the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notice under Section 28 and other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short " the"). The power to issue show cause notice on account of short recovery, non-recovery or erroneously refunded duties, is provided under Section 28 of theand it is only the proper officer who is empowered to issue a show cause notice and to adjudicate the same under the said provision and some of the other provisions also empower only the proper officer to perform certain functions. The terms proper officer is defined in Section 2(34) which is as under :-

Section 2 (34) : "proper officer", in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board of the Principal Commissioner of Customs of Customs.

From time to time notifications have been issued with regard to assigning specific functions to various customs officer, which includes functions under Section 28 of theand with regard to territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction.

3.4 The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Act, has appointed various officers of DRI as Customs Officers, but as per Section 2(34) of the Act, the Customs Officers were not designated as "proper officer". However, by virtue of their appointments as Customs Officers, they were issuing show cause notices under Section 28 of the. This led a litigation to Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction of such Customs Officers to issue show cause notices. However, in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali, (2011) 3 SCC 537 [LQ/SC/2011/276] , the Honble Supreme Court inter alia held that "From a conjoint reading of Sections 2 (34) and 28 of the, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected, by either the Board of the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of theis competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the."

3.5 Pursuant to this, Section 28 of thewas amended, Explanation 2 to the amended Section 28 reads as under :-

"Explanation 2 :- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received."

3.6 Thereafter, another Act, being the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 was enacted which introduced a new sub-section (11) to Section 28 w.e.f. 6th July 2011 and the said sub-section (11) reads as under :-

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority, all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-section (1) of section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011 shall be deemed to have an always had the power of assessment under section 17 and shall be deemed to have and always had been proper officers for the purpose of this section."

3.7 The respondent no.2 issued notification dated 6th July 2011 assigning the functions of the proper officer to the Additional Director Generals, Additional Directors or Joint Directors or Assistant Directors in the DRI for the purpose of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the. However, the said notification did not provide for the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons appointed therein as proper officers.

3.8 The synopsis of dates and events as averred in the petition, are required to be reproduced in verbatim as under :-

DATE

EVENT

-

The power to issue show cause notice on account of short recovery, non-recovery or erroneously refunded duties under Section 28 of theis conferred only the "proper officer". Likewise, some of the other provisions of the and rules made thereunder also empower only the "proper officer" to perform certain functions. The term "proper officer" is defined in Section 2(34):

Section 2(34) : "proper officer", in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs.

-

The petitioner understands that notifications have been issued from time to time in regard to assigning specific functions to various officers of customs, including functions under Section 28 of the. Moreover, from time to time, notifications are issued in regard to territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction.

07.03.2002

From time to time, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4(1) of the Act, has appointed various officers of DRI as Customs Officers. The last such notification is Notification No.17/2002-Cus (N.T.) dated 7.3.2002. By virtue of such notifications, various officers of DRI were being appointed as Customs Officers under Section 4 of thebut were not designated as "proper officers" as per Section 2(34) of the.

-

However, by virtue of their appointment as Customs Officers, they and other persons appointed as Customs Officers by way of such other notifications were issuing show cause notices under Section 28 of the. This led to various litigations challenging the jurisdiction of such Customs Officers to issue show cause notices, which litigation travelled to the Honble Supreme Court.

18.02.2011

By a judgment rendered in the case of <JREF>Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 3 SCC 537 [LQ/SC/2011/276] </JREF>, the Honble Supreme Court inter alia held that "From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of theis competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the."

08.04.2011

Pursuant to this, Section 28 of thewas amended by way of the Finance Act, 2011. The amended Section 28 still provided that it is the "proper officer" who is empowered to issue a show cause notice and to adjudicate the same under the said provision. Explanation 2 to the amended Section 28 reads as under :

Explanation 2:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received.

06.07.2011

The respondent no.2 issued Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) assigning the functions of the "proper officer" inter alia to the Additional Director Generals, Additional Directors or Joint Directors or Assistant Directors in the DRI for the purpose of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the. The said notification however did not provide for the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons appointed therein as "proper officers" for the purposes of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the.

06.09.2011

Shortly thereafter, the Customs (Amendment and Validation Act, 2911 was enacted which introduced a new sub-section (11) to Section 28 with effect from 06.09.2011 and the same reds as under :

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority, all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-section (1) of section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under section 17 and shall be deemed to have and always had been proper officers for the purposes of this section.

07.11.2014

Pursuant to certain investigations conducted and statements recorded in 2014, the respondent no.3, an authority in the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of the DRI, issued a show cause notice dated 7.11.2014 upon the petitioners inter alia proposing redetermination, under the provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 of the value of goods imported by the petitioner no.1 during the period from 2009 to 2013 through Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhavasheva, Maharashtra and imposition of so-called differential customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/- as also interest and penalty. The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111 of the. The petitioners were called upon to show cause to the respondent no.4.

11.02.215

The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 11.02.2015 on merits, along with documents, disputing the allegations made in the said show cause notice, which was filed before the respondent no.4. At that time, the petitioner was not aware of the legal position and controversy regarding jurisdiction of the DRI officers and therefore, its reply did not contain the issue of jurisdiction of the .....

4. Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2, the present petition is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 does not provide for or specify the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons designated therein as proper officers for the purposes of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of theand is therefore, patently arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, de hors and violative of the provisions of law, vague, without application of mind, invalid and illegal inter alia since :

(i) A notification conferring certain powers upon certain officers must be in regard to certain specific areas and cannot be vague as to the area of their jurisdiction.

(ii) The powers/jurisdiction to be exercised under Sections 17 and 28 of thepertain to assessment and reassessment of customs duty payable on imported goods and therefore, involve an adjudicatory function which must be subject to territorial limits of jurisdiction.

(iii) The powers/jurisdiction conferred by Section 28 of theinvolve satisfaction on the basis of material that customs duty has not been levied or is short levied or erroneously refunded, which power/jurisdiction, by its very nature, requires territorial limits of jurisdiction.

(iv) The provisions of Section 28 of thecan only be conferred on or available to officers in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected and any other reading of relevant provisions of law would lead to a situation of utter chaos and confusion inasmuch as any Customs Officer across the country can exercise powers under Section 28 of thein respect of any goods imported anywhere in the country. Any other interpretation would mean that over-broad and untrammeled powers have been conferred upon such persons without any territorial limits and would result in a chaotic situation where any officer can exercise powers under Sections 17 and 28 in respect of any import anywhere in the country and may also result in multiplicity of litigations in respect of the same import.

(v) In case of the regular customs authorities which are exercising power under Sections 17, 28 the respondent no.2 itself provides for territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction and hence, it is patently arbitrary, highhanded and without application of mind to not provide for such territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction in regard to officers covered by the Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011,which has resulted in such officers exercising such powers/jurisdiction in respect of any and all areas.

(vi) The said notification is therefore, ex facie vague since it fails to provide for the territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction of the various persons who have been conferred powers under Section 28 thereunder and is issued without any application of mind.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that assuming without admitting that the Notification No.44/2011-Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 is not invalid for vagueness. It is further submitted that for the foregoing reasons, the various persons who have been conferred powers under Sections 17 and 28 of thethereunder cannot exercise such powers/jurisdiction unless and until such territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction are fixed. Any other interpretation would mean over-broad and untrammeled powers having been conferred upon such persons without any territorial limits and would result in a chaotic situation where any officer can exercise powers under Sections 17 and 28 in respect of any import anywhere in the country and may also result in multiplicity of litigation in respect of the same import.

7. It is submitted that the impugned show cause dated 7th November 2014 is wholly without jurisdiction and void for the foregoing reasons since :

(i) Section 28 (11) of thedoes not state that it operates notwithstanding anything contained in the and is therefore subject to Explanation 2 to Section 28 which provides that non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refunded prior to the date on which Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately prior thereto. Reading these provisions together, it is clear that the respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction to exercise any power under Section 28 in respect of or covering a period prior to 8th April 2011 since the respondent no.3 was not a proper officer at that time and there was no provision akin to Section 28(11) during that period whereby he could be considered as deemed to be a proper officer.

(ii) Section 28(11) cannot and does not validate show cause notices issued by the officers of DRI if it amounts to reopening of assessment of customs duty for a period prior to 8th April 2011.

(iii) The show cause notice proposes re-determination of the value of the goods imported by the petitioner under Section 14(1) of theread with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), 2007 which is beyond the respondent no.3s powers/jurisdiction since he is not a proper officer for the purpose of the said provisions. Likewise, the show cause notice seeks to invoke other provisions of the such as Section 111 of thewhich is also beyond the respondent.3s powers/ jurisdiction since he is not a proper officer for the purpose of such provisions.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notification and show cause notice are even otherwise unconstitutional, contrary to the statute, illegal and invalid. It is further submitted that the impugned show cause notice is based upon the ground that it is without jurisdiction and hence the alternative remedy is not at all efficacious. It is submitted that the petitioners have no other alternative efficacious remedy available to them under law in respect of the subject matter of the present petition and the reliefs sought herein, if granted, would be adequate.

9. As against this, Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3, which reads as under :-

"....3. Based on intelligence that import of watermelon seeds was being undervalued by the petitioner, as case was booked by DRI, Ahmedabad against the petitioner on 12th August 2014. Inquiry in the case was conducted and a show cause notice F.No.DRI/AZI/GI-02/ENQ(INT-09/14) 2014 dated 7 th November 2014 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the imports made during 2009 to 2013 demanding customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/- along with proposing penalty on the petitioner and its partner Shri Ajay Tehalyani.

4. The respondent no.3 seeks to make the following submission against the application made by the applicant before the Honble Court.

4.1 The petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the same is ex-facia and without jurisdiction and illegal, which is false and baseless in as much the by virtue of Notification no.17/2002-Cus (NT) dated 7th March 2002 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Board of Excise and Customs has appointed the Additional Director General, DRI posted at Hqrs and Zonal/Regional unit to the Commissioner of Customs. Further the Jurisdictional area for the Additional Director General defined is also mentioned therein as the Whole of India. From the above Notification it is clear that the Additional Director General, DRI, has been appointed as the Commissioner of Customs for the Jurisdiction of the Whole of India. Hence, the point raised by the petitioner that the Additional Director General does not have Territorial Jurisdiction is totally false and baseless.

4.2 Further, as per Notification No.44/2011-Cus dated 6th July 2011 issued under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Board has assigned the functions of the proper officer to the Addl. Director General, DRI for the purpose of Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue raised by the petitioner that territorial jurisdiction has not been assigned in the Notification no.44/2011-Cus dated 6th July 2011, also appears to a vague plea taken by them since section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not mandate that the territorial jurisdiction of the proper officer should be defined at the time of assigning the functions of the proper officer. The section 2(34) only speaks of assigning the functions to a customs officer by the board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs.

4.3 Subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 18th February 2011 in the case of the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, (2011) 3 SCC 537 [LQ/SC/2011/276] , the Government of India vide Notification No.44/2011-Cus (NT) dated 6 th July 2011 has assigned the functions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Additional Director General, DRI. This effectively means that the powers under Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be exercised by the Additional Director General, DRI. In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7th November 2014 demanding customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith confiscation and penalties etc. Conjoint reading of both the said Notifications, effectively means that as on the date of issue of the said show cause notice i.e. 7 th November 2014, the Additional Director General of DRI, had powers to function as a Commissioner of Customs for the territorial jurisdiction of the whole of India and as such the contention of the petitioner is totally false and baseless.

4.4 The petitioner at para no.10 has referred to an instruction dated 29th June 2016 and requested the adjudicating Authority to keep the case in call book. Since the issue of whether the case has to be kept in call book or otherwise has to be taken by the respondent no.4, and as such respondent no.3 has no comment to offer on it.

4.5 Further in the case of SCA No.2894 of 2013 filed in the case of (1) M/s. Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Joint Director, DRI, the Honble High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 8th January 2014 and (2) Writ Petition No.12153 of 2012 filed in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Union of India, Honble High Court of Mumbai vide order dated 3rd November 2014 upheld the power of issue of show cause notice by DRI and it was decided that the SCNs issued by them were legal and issued well within jurisdiction.

5. Therefore, on the grounds mentioned hereinabove, the petition needs to be quashed and no relief be granted to the petitioner."

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the proceedings.

11. The petitioners have attempted to indicate that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali (supra) has not been clearly appreciated by the respondents inasmuch as the conferment of the jurisdiction upon the officer of DRI without there being a reference to the territorial jurisdiction would be leaving a room for rendering it vitiated. The impugned notices therefore, have been assailed on this account by the petitioners.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Courts attention to the relevant paragraph in the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali (supra) to support the contention that the jurisdiction to decide or issue notices sought to be conferred upon DRI Officer by nominating them or describing them proper officer for the purpose of investigation or examination without any reference to the territory would therefore, not cloth them with the power to issue notice.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the issue therefore, cannot be said to be not concluded on account of the notification produced on record with the affidavit-in-reply. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the affidavit-in-reply and the show-cause notice and the accompanying documents would clearly indicate that the DRI officers were not lacking in jurisdiction, as right from the beginning the territory of India is referred to in the notification in question. The relevant portion of the affidavit-in-reply deserves to be set-out in verbatim to appreciate the contention on behalf of the respondent for resisting the petition.

"...3.1 The petitioner in the instant application has not challenged the merits of the case instead prayed for the quashing of the Notification no.44/2011 Cus (NT) Dated 6.7.2011 on the grounds that the said Notification does not specify the territorial jurisdiction of the person designated therein as the proper officers for the purpose of section 17, 28 & 28AAA of the.

4.1 The petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the Show cause Notice dated 7.11.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the same is ex facia and without jurisdiction and illegal, which is false and baseless in as much by virtue of Notification no. 17/2002-Cus (NT) dated 7.3.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has appointed the Additional Director General, DRI posted at Hqrs and Zonal / Regional unit to the Commissioner of Customs. Further the Jurisdictional area for the Additional Director General defined is also mentioned therein as the Whole of India. From the above Notification it is clear that the Additional DIRector General, DRI, has been appointed as the Commissioner of Customs for the Jurisdiction of the Whole of India. Hence, the point raised by the petitioner that the Additional Director General does not have Territorial Jurisdiction is totally false and baseless.

4.2 Further, as per Notification No.44/2011-Cus dated 6.7.2011 issued under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Board has assigned the functions of the proper officer to the Additional Direcotr General, DRI for the purpose of Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue raised by the petitioner that territorial jurisdiction has not been assigned in the Notification no.44/2011-Cus dated 6.7.2011, also appears to a vague plea taken by them since section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not mandate that the territorial jurisdiction of the "proper officer" should be defined at the time of assigning the functions to a Customs Officer by the board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs.

4.3 Subsequent to the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 18.2.2011 in the case of the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, (2011) 3 SCC 537 [LQ/SC/2011/276] , the Govt of India vide Notification No.44.2011-Cus (NT) dated 6.7.2011 has assigned the functions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 2961 to the Additional Director General, DRI. This effectively means that the powers under Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be exercised by the Additional Director General, DRI. In the instant case the Show cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.11.2014 demanding Customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with confiscation and penalties etc. Conjoint reading of both the said Notifications, effectively means that as on the date of issue of the said Show cause Notice i.e. 7.11.2014, the Additional Director General of DRI, had powers to function as a Commissioner of Customs for the territorial jurisdiction of the whole of India and as such the contention of the petitioner is totally false and baseless."

14. The said affidavit-in-reply and the averments mentioned thereunder on oath have remained uncontroverted or undisputed. In that view of the matter, the question arises as to whether this Court would embark upon the examining of this aspect only when the show cause notice is under challenge. The show cause notice as per say if found without jurisdiction then, it goes without saying that this Court has power to or rather duty to embark upon the examination and pass appropriate direction as this would go to the root of the matter. In the instant case, the averments made on oath have remained to be controverted and when it is only a show cause notice, which could be answered properly and the adjudication if permitted would not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the show cause notice without rendering final opinion upon the aspect of the jurisdiction when prima facie appears to be not without any authority of law are required to be permitted to be proceeded with.

15. As a result thereof, the petitioners could be said to be having not made-out a case for interference and the petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. It goes without saying that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of examining the controversy in question and the same have no bearing upon the right of the petitioners to take-out all the submissions available under law while replying to the show cause notices and during the adjudication thereof.

16. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed. Notice discharged.

-: FURTHER ORDER :-

At this stage, Ms.Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioners urges the Court to continue the interim arrangement as the same has been continuing from quite some time. We are of the view that as the interim arrangement has been continuing from quite some time, therefore, it would be in fitness of things that interim arrangement be continued for the further period of six weeks from today.