{"id":343756,"date":"2025-03-17T15:00:47","date_gmt":"2025-03-17T09:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=343756"},"modified":"2025-03-19T09:43:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T04:13:08","slug":"delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> A petition was filed challenging the show cause notice dated 01-09-2023 issued under Section 28(4)<\/a> of the Customs Act, 1962<\/a>, by the respondents against the petitioner. The Division Bench of Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., quashed the impugned notice and held that the issuance of a second notice based on the same factual matrix was legally untenable and an abuse of the statutory process emphasizing that a subsequent notice under Section 28(4) could not supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.<\/p>\n

The petitioner is engaged in the import and sale of mobile phone components. The dispute arose when the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 01-09-2023 under Section 28(4)<\/a> of the Customs Act, 1962<\/a>. The notice alleged that the petitioner had misclassified its imported goods, specifically parts of mobile phones, and thereby, evaded customs duty. The respondents contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and wrongly classified imported goods under a tariff heading applicable to parts, instead of as complete mobile phones, which attracted a higher duty.<\/p>\n

The controversy escalated as the petitioner had already been issued a prior show cause notice dated 25-07-2023 under Section 28(1) of the Act for the same set of goods, based on the same factual matrix. The petitioner argued that issuing a second notice under Section 28(4) was a clear case of “change of opinion” and amounted to an impermissible reassessment without fresh grounds.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice under Section 28(4) was unsustainable in law as it was based on the same factual allegations as the prior notice under Section 28(1), constituting an impermissible “change of opinion.” Section 28(4) requires proof of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, none of which were present in this case. The Respondents failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intent on the part of the Petitioner. The classification adopted by the Petitioner for imported mobile phone parts was consistent with industry standards and had been previously accepted in customs assessments. The issuance of two separate notices for the same set of transactions created legal uncertainty and violated principles of fairness.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondents argued that the subsequent show cause notice under Section 28(4) was justified as it was based on additional findings and a reassessment of classification errors made by the Petitioner. The classification adopted by the Petitioner was incorrect and led to deliberate underpayment of customs duty. The impugned notice was not a “change of opinion” but rather a necessary corrective action based on a fresh and independent investigation.<\/p>\n

The Court carefully examined the distinction between Sections 28(1)<\/a> and 28(4)<\/a> of the Customs Act<\/a>. It noted that Section 28(1) applies in cases of short-paid or erroneously refunded duty without any fraudulent intent, whereas Section 28(4) applies only when non-payment of duty results from collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the two Show Cause Notices were nearly identical in content, differing only in the statutory provision invoked and the period covered. The issuance of a subsequent notice under Section 28(4) contradicted the assessment under Section 28(1), rendering it legally untenable. The investigation reports relied upon in both notices were identical, indicating that no fresh grounds existed for invoking Section 28(4). The principle of “change of opinion” applied because the same facts were interpreted differently within a short span by the same authority.<\/p>\n

The Court also noted that Section 28 of the Act, by its very nature posits, in a given set of facts and circumstances, the issuance of a SCN either under Section 28(1) or under Section 28(4) of the Act and not under both.” The argument that the Section 28(4) notice was a “supplementary notice” was rejected outright, as Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) operate in separate legal fields and cannot be used interchangeably.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog<\/span>, (2015) 17 SCC 324<\/a>, wherein it was held that reassessment cannot be justified based on a mere change in interpretation without new material. In Commr. of Customs v. G.C. Jain<\/span>, (2011) 12 SCC 713<\/a>, it was emphasized that an administrative re-evaluation of the same facts does not justify invoking a different provision. These judgments reinforced the principle that a reassessment under a different statutory provision, without fresh evidence, is legally unsustainable.<\/p>\n

The Court quashed the impugned show cause notice dated 01-09-2023, ruling that it was issued in violation of established principles of law. It emphasized that Section 28(4) notice could not supplement a prior Section 28(1) notice as both provisions serve distinct legal purposes. The issuance of conflicting notices for the same set of transactions led to legal uncertainty and procedural unfairness. The respondents failed to establish any material suppression, collusion, or willful misstatement on the part of the Petitioner.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of in favor of the petitioner.<\/p>\n

[Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1537<\/a>, decided on 07-03-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tarun Jain, Ms. Kritika Tuteja, Mr. Devansh Garg & Ms. Sheena Tyagi, Advocates for petitioner<\/p>\n

Mr. Gibran Naushad, SCC with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocate for respondents<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Section 28 of Customs Act, by its very nature posits, in each set of facts and circumstances, the issuance of a SCN either under Section 28(1) or under Section 28(4) of the Act and not under both. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree that the impugned SCN under section 28(4) of the Act post the issuance of the SCN under Section 28(1) could be termed a “Supplementary Notice”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[79843,76308,78872,72373,79840,79844,79841,79839,76307,79845,79842,74641,76729],"class_list":["post-343756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-changeofopinion","tag-customsact","tag-customslaw","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-importduty","tag-priornotice","tag-scn","tag-section28","tag-showcausenotice","tag-subsequentnotice","tag-taxevasion","tag-taxlaw","tag-taxlitigation"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC: Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice under Section 28(1)| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-17T09:30:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-19T04:13:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC: Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice under Section 28(1)| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-17T09:30:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-19T04:13:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC: Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice under Section 28(1)| SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-03-17T09:30:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-19T04:13:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC: Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice under Section 28(1)| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-03-17T09:30:47+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-19T04:13:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/17\/delhi-high-court-customs-act-section-28-4-notice-invalid-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice Under Section 28(1): Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":262184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":0},"title":"[Customs Act] Raj HC | DRI officer is not Competent Authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as \u201cproper officer\u201d; Show cause notice set aside","author":"Editor","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kumar, CJ and Sameer Kureshi, J. allowed the writ petition and set aside the proceedings issued by show cause notice and subsequent demands confirmed by OIO.\u00a0 The case of the petitioner is that he is a Customs House Agent and the co-petitioners\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":299700,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/20\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-show-cause-notice-not-falling-within-ambit-s28-customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside show cause notice not falling within the ambit of Section 28 (9A)(c) of Customs Act","author":"Arunima","date":"August 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 28 provides a window of five years from the relevant date within which proceedings under the said provision may be initiated. The proceedings so initiated are liable to be ended in accordance with the statutory timelines which stand out in sub-section (9).","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334761,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":2},"title":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 9, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications issued which empowered the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"DRI officers","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":305869,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/27\/delhi-high-court-quashes-ex-parte-proceedings-ed-violation-principles-natural-justice-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court quashes proceedings under S. 56 FERA for violation of principles of natural justice","author":"Arunima","date":"October 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice\/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":366778,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/15\/not-liable-to-pay-redemption-fine-customs-delays-show-cause-notice-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":4},"title":"Delayed Show Cause notice by Customs — Is the Owner of goods still liable for redemption fine, penalty or interest? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"November 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court considered how the timing of a Show Cause Notice by Customs Department impacts the owner\u2019s liability.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs delays show cause notice","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Customs-delays-show-cause-notice.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Customs-delays-show-cause-notice.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Customs-delays-show-cause-notice.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Customs-delays-show-cause-notice.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351215,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/21\/art-24-aifta-not-deprive-customs-authorities-to-issue-show-cause-notice-bomhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":343756,"position":5},"title":"Read why Bombay HC held that Article 24 of AIFTA did not deprive customs authorities to issue show cause notices","author":"Editor","date":"June 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner, Purple Products, imported Tin Ingots manufactured from Malaysia, with a valid Certificate of Origin and based on such certification, it claimed and availed benefits under Customs Exemption Notification No. 46 of 2011, dated 1-6-2011, from time to time.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=343756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343756\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=343756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=343756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=343756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}