1 2025:CGHC:47449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4921 of 2025 Satinath Dhara S/o Sh. Shrikanta Dhara Aged About 43 Years R/o Rabibhag, Hawrah, West Bengal- 711312 (Aadhaar No. 773259883636). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Cbic, Dept. Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - Deputy Director/ Assistant Director Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, 30- Panchsheel Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)- 492001 3 - Additional Joint Commissioner Of Customs B-Zone, 3rd Floor, 12/27 And 12/28, Village- Piplyakumar, Nipania, Indore (M.P) 452010. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Divakar Upadhyaya, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI None For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AS Kachchawaha, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/09/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 177 of Cr.PC, Section 12 & 13 of RPF Act, Rule 14 & 15 of RPF Rules/section 110, Section 110A, Sections 104, 135 and 151 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act) for quashing of the show-cause-notice dated 18.06.2022 and subsequent notices due to non-receipt /non-giving of SCN to the petitioner and release of one plain gold bar weighing 999.850 gm/01 kg of Indian origin having purity of 99.4 which did not carry foreign marks or stamp or any sign or any indication showing foreign origin or name of country of origin which was alleged to have been recovered and seized from the petitioner on 19/11/2021 by RPF officials at Bilaspur and later alleged to have been seized by officers of Regional Unit of DRI at Raipur (DRI (RU) Raipur on the same date on 19.11.2021 alongwith prayer for quashing of all proceedings against the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case are that on 19.11.2021 a gold bar of 1 kg was allegedly seized from Satinath Dhara by RPF officials at Bilaspur Railway Station. Subsequently on 19-20.11.2021 gold 3 jewellery, semi-finished jewellery and raw gold were allegedly seized from the premises of the petitioner. The SCN dated 18.06.2022 alleges confiscation of all seized gold on the grounds of import and possession of goods of foreign origin without authorization. The petitioner contend that all the seized gold jewellery and raw material is of Indian origin, legally procured, manufactured supported by invoices and documentary evidence. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the SCN is illegal and void ab initio as the DRI had no authority to issue the same. The petitioner had legally acquired all the gold and jewellery in question. The seizure from RPF officials and the petitioner’s premises was procedurally flawed without adherence to statutory provisions of the Customs Act or RPF Act. There was no notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act to the petitioner before personal search. All documents relied upon by the respondents are disputed by the petitioner as fabricated or inconsistent. The SCN violates principles of natural justice as no opportunity was affording to present evidence of Indian origin of the seized goods. The petitioner therefore seeks release of all gold and jewellery and quashing of the proceedings as malafide, arbitrary and unsustainable. 5. The proceedings leading to the seizure were mala fide, arbitrary and violative of statutory procedures under the Customs Act. It is submitted that the documents relied upon by the 4 respondents, including invoices and panchnamas, are fabricated. It is submitted that the SCN violates principles of natural justice and no prior notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act was allegedly given to the petitioner. He further submits that the SCN proposes confiscation of gold allegedly imported illegally whereas the gold was purchased legally from M/s. Saheli Jewellers, Bhilai supported by invoices. He submits that the petitioner has no opportunity to present his case and the proceedings amount to an abuse of process. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the SCN was issued in accordance with law, following interception of Satinath Dhara at Bilaspur Railway Station and discovery of gold and documents indicting smuggling of gold of foreign origin. He further argued that Section 123 of the Customs Act places the onus on the person from whose possession goods are seized to prove the legitimate origin, which the petitioner has failed to discharge. He submits that the invoice produced by the petitioner and associated persons are fabricated and inconsistent with the transaction records the SCN is not a demand but a procedural step providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The present writ petition is premature and not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedies under Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter to the ESTAT. Reliance 5 has been placed by the counsel for the respondents in the orders passed by this Court in WPT No. 190 of 2022, Nathuram Surendra Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and Others; WPT No. 191 of 2022, M/s. Jain Brothers Vs. Union of India and Others; WPT No. 137 of 2022, Ashok P. Wagh Vs. Union of India and Others of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 7. On perusal of the records and the rival submissions of the parties, the following issues are to be looked into: 1. Whether the issuance of SCN dated 18.06.2022 by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary or without jurisdiction; 2. Whether the petition has made out any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at the SCN stage; 3. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Customs At, 1962; 4. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in law; 8. On perusal of above, the following observations are made: i. The SCN is issued in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, following seizure of gold and associated documents indicating smuggling activities. ii. The petitioner's claim that the SCN is illegal or the documents are fabricated is a matter to be examined and adjudicated by the statutory authority, not at the writ stage. iii. As has been held in the decisions relied upon by the Respondents including Nathuram Surendra Kumar Jain Vs. 6 Union of India and Others and Ashok P.Wagh Vs. Union of India and Others, the High Court will not interfere with SCNs at the preliminary stge unless there is a clear demonstration of mala fide action or breach of constitutional rights. iv. The petitioner has a complete efficacious statutory remedy under Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Acct, allowing appeal to the commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently to the CESTAT. All contentions including technical and legal objections, can be raised before these forums. 9. Thus, no exceptional circumstance has been shown which would justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction at this stage. The mere allegation of procedural irregularity, without proof of violation of fundamental rights or mala fide intent is insufficient. 10. In view of the above analysis, this Court holds that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. The petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the SCN. The petitioner shall avail the statutory remedies provided under the Customs Act, 1962. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.