SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to withdraw, recall and/or set aside the Show Cause Notice dated March 8,1990 issued by the respondent No. 2 Assistant Collector of Customs for appraising Group II and for release of the goods covered under Invoices and Bills of Entry being Annexures 'd' and 'f' to the writ petition in the Bengal Bonded Warehouse without claiming any further or additional duty and/or in excess of what had already been paid by the petitioner company on March 20 and May 12,1989 and other consequential reliefs. ( 2 ) IT is stated in details that the petitioner company has to import necessary raw materials and in July 1988 the petitioner allegedly purchased from M/s. Leonard Kurz GMBH Co. of Postfach 1954, SCHWABACHER Straser 482, D-8510 Furth/bayern, West Germany through its authorised agent in India, M/s. Ratten Chand Khanna of 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Stamping Foils of diverse quantities and qualities for a total price as averred in the writ petition. ( 3 ) ON March 8, 1990 the Customs Authorities purportedly issued a Show Cause Notice in relation to the aforesaid consignments alleging, inter alia, that the imported goods were not meant for use in leather industries as per the standard programme given by the manufacturer and the petitioners were directed to submit reply to the said Show Cause Notice. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the said notice on the ground that the purported Show Cause Notice had been issued arbitrarily and without any application of mind. It is asserted that the demand of the concerned authorities made in the Show Cause Notice to submit catalogue/literature of the manufacturer of the said goods was wrongful, arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as in the Invoices issued by the overseas manufacturers had already been submitted to the concerned Department where it had clearly been mentioned and confirmed by the manufacturers that the goods covered under the said Invoices were most suitable for stamping on leather and products of leather. Further, it was necessary to establish the publication of the import of the said goods and their users. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is seriously contested by the respondent Customs Authorities who filed a comprehensive Affidavit-in-Opposition. Further, it was necessary to establish the publication of the import of the said goods and their users. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is seriously contested by the respondent Customs Authorities who filed a comprehensive Affidavit-in-Opposition. The petitioner has, however, filed a reply reiterating the points already stated in the writ petition; by submitting that there is no bar for the petitioner to obtain reliefs in the manner as prayed for. ( 6 ) BOTH the Id. lawyers of the respective parties have made lengthy submissions before this Court in support of their clients. Written Notes have also been filed giving reference of a number of decisions. ( 7 ) THIS Court having heard the learned lawyers of both sides finds that the scope of the present writ petition is very much limited. Notice to show cause has been challenged. There is no final adjudication as yet. The petitioner can very well file Reply and the matter can be adjudicated in the proper perspective. ( 8 ) ATTENTION of this Court has been drawn to a decision reported in (Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. ). It is stated, inter alia that no writ lies against a show cause notice since there is no order either judicial or quasi-judicial. No Mandamus can be issued. There was nothing which was required to be done or forborne by the Act. The authorities had ample jurisdiction to issue notice to show cause. The act done or caused to have been done to issue the notice to show cause is not beyond the jurisdiction nor the acts are perverse necessitating any interference. This Court with great anxiety has looked into the matter. It does not appear that the issuance of the notice, ipso facto is bad and any interference requires. There is a reference of a case decided by this Bench reported in (Shawkat Kamal v. Collector of Customs ). The facts of the present case are quite distinguishing and the ratio of the said judgment is not squarely applicable in the present case. There is notice to show cause and the petitioners have ample opportunities to raise all the points in the reply and the authority can certainly adjudicate the same in the proper perspective. The facts of the present case are quite distinguishing and the ratio of the said judgment is not squarely applicable in the present case. There is notice to show cause and the petitioners have ample opportunities to raise all the points in the reply and the authority can certainly adjudicate the same in the proper perspective. If the decision is otherwise bad in law the petitioner has certainly sufficient remedies to ventilate before the Appellate authority and also by coming to this Court in accordance with law. There is no jurisdictional error nor steps taken by the respondent authority are contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law. There is nothing for the Writ Court to interfere. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reason this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.