Judgment :- When W.M.P. No. 11975 of 1994 for an injunction filed by the Writ Petitioner and W.M.P. No. 24245 of 1994 filed by the Department for vacating the injunction came up before this Court, the main Writ Petition itself has been heard, having regard to the nature of the claim and the stage of the proceedings before the authorities below. 2.The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings on the file of the 2nd respondent in file No. SIB/136/93/S16/3/94 SIB, dated 28-3-1994 whereunder the 2nd respondent came to issue a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 25 of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), calling upon the petitioner to show cause to the Collector of Customs-II, Customs House, Madras-1, as to why 25, 725 pieces of snake skins with an estimated market value of Rs. 50 lakhs attempted to be illegally exported out of India, be not confiscated under Sections 113(d) and 113(i) of the Act and the levy of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act should not be made for the various acts, referred to in detail in the show cause notice under challenge. On receipt of the above show cause notice, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3.It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is an Engineering Graduate, originally in the service of the Public Works Department, later resigned the job to join a private organisation as a Project Engineer, and thereafter started his own engineering contract works. In the course of undertaking and executing engineering contract works, he claims to have gained experience to enter into industrial line and he had been issued with the impugned show cause notice involving the petitioner in the alleged offence under the Act. 4.Having regard to the nature and stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I consider it inappropirate as also not desirable to advert to the various claims made on the merits of the case, except referring to one ground, among other grounds, on which the impugned show cause notice is challenged. 4.Having regard to the nature and stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I consider it inappropirate as also not desirable to advert to the various claims made on the merits of the case, except referring to one ground, among other grounds, on which the impugned show cause notice is challenged. The said ground of challenge is based on the provisions contained in Section 122 of the Act and based also on the fact of the market value of the goods alleged to have been exported, as given in the show cause notice itself, which renders the 2nd respondent-authority lacking in jurisdiction to issue such a notice. While admitting the writ petition, interim injunction has been granted by this Court on 27-4-1994. 5.The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit in the writ miscellaneous petition contending among other things that the writ petition is premature at the stage of the show cause notice, that on an elaborate investigation conducted the involvement of the petitioner came to light, which necessitated the issue of a show cause notice under the impugned proceedings, that there areprima faciematerials against the petitioner and his involvement, which necessitated the issue of a show cause notice and that there is absolutely no legal infirmity in officers other than the adjudication authority issuing the show cause notice. It is also contended that though the show cause notice was issued and signed by the Assistant Collector, the notice has directed the petitioner to appear directly before the adjudicating authority, who, in this case, is the Collector of Customs-II, Madras, that this practice has been upheld by various courts and that, therefore, the issue of notice by the 2nd respondent in this case does not suffer from any legal or other infirmity, warranting interference of this Court at this stage. As noticed earlier, the reference made to the factual averments made in the counter-affidavit is not to be treated as any indication of expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the claim itself. 6.The above challenge based on the lack of jurisdiction in the 2nd respondent to issue the show cause notice, under challenge under Section 124 of the Act has to be considered in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6.The above challenge based on the lack of jurisdiction in the 2nd respondent to issue the show cause notice, under challenge under Section 124 of the Act has to be considered in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the stipulations contained in paragraph 34 of the impugned show cause notice stated that the petitioner is called upon to show cause to the Collector of Customs, Madras-1 the recital in paragraph 36 obliges the petitioner to submit the explanation in the office of "the undersigned" meaning thereby the 2nd respondent, within 15 (fifteen) days and that, therefore, the impugned notice is contrary to law and totally without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on a decision of the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court inV. Ramanandav.Collector of Customs- 1965 AIR(Kerala) 286). Learned counsel also tried to distinguish the decision reported inTarak Nathv.Union of India 1975 AIR(Calcutta) 337), which is also one of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. 7.Learned Counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, referred to supra, has relied upon the decisions inM.B. Patelv.Kaul 1976 AIR(Gujarat) 134) andTarak Nathv.Union of India(supra) in support of his stand that no infirmity can be attributed to the notice under challenge and that the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be wanting in jurisdiction to issue the said notice. While contending that the grievance of the petitioner proceeds on suppositions and surmises, learned counsel for the respondents would urge that there was no justification to presume that it is the 2nd respondent, who will take up further follow-up action pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, that the fact that the copies of explanation were required to be filed in the office of the 2nd respondent is to facilitate easy receipt and for placing the matter before the adjudicating authority effectively and that there is nothing in the notice as such, which is indicative of the fact that further proceedings will not be held or conducted by the adjudicating authority, viz. the Collector of Customs-II, Madras, who has already been referred to as the adjudicating authority in the notice under challenge itself. the Collector of Customs-II, Madras, who has already been referred to as the adjudicating authority in the notice under challenge itself. 8.Before adverting to the consideration of claims made by learned counsel appearing on either side, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act as also the decisions relied upon at the Bar. Section 122 of the Act reads as hereunder : "Adjudication of confiscation and penalties.- In every case under this Chapter in which anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged, - (a) without limit, by a Collector of Customs or a Deputy Collector of Customs; (b) where the vlaue of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, by an Assistant Collector of Customs; (c) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed two thousand five hundred rupees, by a Gazetted officer of customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs.' Section 124 of the Act reads as hereunder :" Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. - No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter : Provided that the notice referred to in Clause (a) and the representation referred to in Clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral.' 9.The decision inV. Ramanandav.Collector of Customs - 1965 AIR(Kerala) 286 is that of a learned single Judge of that Court wherein the challenge before the learned Judge by means of the writ petition was of the order passed by the Collector of Customs ordering confiscation and imposing a penalty on the petitioner. Among the various grounds of challenge, it is found that the two grounds considered in the Judgment deserve reference. Among the various grounds of challenge, it is found that the two grounds considered in the Judgment deserve reference. They are : that the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs only stated that the petitioner would appear before him and not before the Collector; and that the Collector of Customs, before he passed the order, did not give any opportunity to the petitioner before the court of being heard and therefore the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice. It is in that context the learned single Judge sustained the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on account of the Collector not giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before passing final orders by him and on account of the defective nature of the notice containing a recital calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Collector of Customs and submit his representations. In my view, the decision will have no relevance or application to the case on hand. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no recital in the notice that the petitioner should appear before the 2nd respondent to make his respresentations. Instead, as noticed earlier, the notice specifically states that the explanation should be submitted to the adjudicating authority, viz. the Ist respondent, and it may be filed before the 2nd respondent and indicates further that if the petitioner so desires, before adjudication he will be heard. That apart, the case before the Kerala High Court was one where final orders have been passed with irregularity, as noticed. So far as the present case is concerned, it is at the stage of show cause notice, having regard to the stand taken by the respondent Department that it is not the object of the 2nd respondent to take any further steps except issuing notice and receiving explanation and forwarding the same by the 2nd respondent to the Ist respondent and that all further proceedings will be taken by the Ist respondent adjudicating authority, alone. 10.The decision inTarak Nathv.Union of India- 1975 AIR(Calcutta) 337) is that of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court wherein the learned Judge had an occasion to deal with a challenge of the nature in question and reject the same on the ground that there was nothing wrong in the Assistant Collector issuing a notice preceding adjudication, provided the person concerned was asked to submit the explanation to the adjudicating authority, as contemplated in the provisions contained in the Adjudication Manual. In my view, the said decision applies to the case on hand and the distinction sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner in this case having been called upon to file the explanation in the office of the 2nd respondent does not in any way alter the position that the 2nd respondent has only called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the Ist respondent, adjudicating authority. 11.The decision inM.B. Patelv.V. Kaul 1976 AIR(Gujarat) 134) is that of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. That was also a case in which the Challenge has been made before the High Court even at the [stage] of show cause notice [sic] issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Challenging the authority of the Assistant Collector, principally on the ground that looking to the value of the commodity seized in respect of which adjudication proceedings were initiated, it was contended that it is only the Collector of Customs or the Deputy Collector of Customs, who has the authority under Section 122 of the Act to conduct the proceedings regarding confiscation and levy of penalty and that, therefore, the show cause notice contemplated under Section 124 of the Act ought to have been issued only by the Collector of Customs or Deputy Collector of Customs authorised to hold adjudication proceedings, and not by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Learned Judges of the Division Bench considered the question from all angles and in great detail and depth and held as hereunder :" Shri Nanavati's contention that the requirement of issuing a show cause notice contemplated by Section 124 of the Act is a part and parcel of the proceedings of adjudication contemplated by Section 122 is also not acceptable. Learned Judges of the Division Bench considered the question from all angles and in great detail and depth and held as hereunder :" Shri Nanavati's contention that the requirement of issuing a show cause notice contemplated by Section 124 of the Act is a part and parcel of the proceedings of adjudication contemplated by Section 122 is also not acceptable. The provision as regards show cause notice which is incorporated in Section 124(a) is, as already stated above, in compliance with the rules of natural justice. These rules of natural justice require that the person against whom the proceedings of confiscation and imposition of penalty are proposed to be undertaken should know the exact grounds on which these proceedings are contemplated to be undertaken. These grounds would be best known to the officer who conducts the proceedings of seizure under Section 110 as it is that officer who proposes to confiscate the goods and who, therefore, ultimately seizes the goods under Section 110. Therefore, that officer would be in a better position to know the grounds on which the goods are seized on the footing that they are liable to confiscation. Under the circumstances, it would not be correct to state that proposal to confiscate the goods and to impose penalty should come only from an officer who is authorised to conduct the adjudication proceedings under Section 122 of the Act. Issuance of a show cause notice is a distinct step which is preliminary to the adjudication proceedings which are to follow. The adjudication proceedings are dependent upon the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, but notvice versa. It is therefore not correct to say that the proceedings for a show cause notice form part and parcel of adjudication proceedings. The scheme of the Act as revealed from Sections 110, 124 and 122 is that after a 'proper officer' forms a reasonable belief that certain goods are liable to be confiscated, he would seize these goods under Section 110. Within six months from this seizure a notice contemplated by Section 124(a) should be given to the person from whose possession these goods are seized, calling upon him to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated. Such a notice under Section 124(a) can be given by any officer who is competent to act. Within six months from this seizure a notice contemplated by Section 124(a) should be given to the person from whose possession these goods are seized, calling upon him to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated. Such a notice under Section 124(a) can be given by any officer who is competent to act. Ordinarily, the officer who has seized the goods after forming a belief that they are liable to be confiscated would be best fitted to issue the required show cause notice and to give information as regards the grounds on which the confiscation is proposed to be made, but there is nothing in Section 124 to prevent any other competent officer from issuing such a notice after studying the facts of the case. It is significant to note that the legislature has advisedly refrained from providing in Section 124 as to who is competent to issue show cause notices under clause (a). The purpose of not making any specific provision on this point is that the issuance of a show cause notice being a formality which is quite distinct and separate from the actual adjudication proceedings under Section 122, such a formality can be undertaken by any officer who is conversant with the facts of the case, and also has authority to take steps under the provisions of the Act. Thus the show cause notice stating grounds of confiscation amounts practically to a charge-sheet submitted by the police relating to an accused who is sought to be tried before a Court of law. Adjudication proceedings which follow pursuant to the show cause notice under Section 124(a) furnish the last step which may result in actual confiscation and penalty. From this analysis of the scheme there emerges nothing to show that the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124(a) is part and parcel of adjudication proceedings held under Section 122.What Section 122 of the Act does is merely to make a suitable distribution of pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate as amongst different ranks of customs officers. Different officers authorised to act under this section may or may not be having first-hand knowledge about the circumstances under which goods are seized under Section 110. They can therefore supply the grounds for confiscation in a show cause notice under Section 124(a) only after studying materials placed before them. Different officers authorised to act under this section may or may not be having first-hand knowledge about the circumstances under which goods are seized under Section 110. They can therefore supply the grounds for confiscation in a show cause notice under Section 124(a) only after studying materials placed before them. It would therefore be a mistake to hold that they are the only authorities who can issue show cause notices under Section 124(a).' 12.On a careful consideration of the above submissions, I am in entire agreement with the principles laid down by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the decision reported inM.B. Patelv.Kaul(Supra). As rightly pointed out, therein as also in the decision of the Calcutta High Court, referred to supra, the petitioner cannot be said to be put to any prejudice or legal damage by the 2nd respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, issuing the show cause notice, since he is also one of the authorities concerned under the Act and conferred with powers to enforce the provisions of the Act and to take action for any violation thereof. Consequently, the provisions of Section 122, which allocates the powers of adjudication for confiscation and imposition of penalty on different authorities of the Department depending upon the value of the goods liable for confiscation, can be no indicator as to who actually has to issue the show cause notice contemplated under Section 124 of the Act. Apart from the fact that in Section 124 itself there is no specific mention or indication that the show cause notice also has to be issued by an authority empowered to pass an order of adjudication, the prescription of different limits on different officers for passing actual orders of adjudication will not, in my view, deny the power of the Assistant Collector of Customs, who is equally an authority entrusted with the powers of enforcement of the provisions of the Act to issue a notice contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, de horsthe value of the goods liable for confiscation. The value of the goods liable for confiscation has relevance only for fixing the authority, which ultimately has to pass an order of adjudication, after giving the opportunity to the person concerned of hearing and enquiry, as it thinks necessary in each individual case. The value of the goods liable for confiscation has relevance only for fixing the authority, which ultimately has to pass an order of adjudication, after giving the opportunity to the person concerned of hearing and enquiry, as it thinks necessary in each individual case. In my view, the scheme underlying the hierarchy of officers designated with financial restrictions or ceiling for limiting their jurisdiction to pass final orders of adjudication envisaged under Section 122 cannot be dovetailed into the provisions contained in Section 124 of the Act so as to necessitate only such authorities with prescribed monetary limits to issue even the show cause notice contemplated under Section 124 of the Act. Section 122 is not the provision conferring power or authority to pass an order of confiscation but merely one identifying the category or officers who can pass such orders. 13.That being the position of law, on the facts and circumstances of the case also, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot make any legal grievance even at this stage. The approach of the petitioner to this Court, in my view, is also premature. The 2nd respondent has only called upon the petitioner to submit the explanation to the first respondent, adjudicating authority, in that, the petitioner has to address the explanation to the first respondent only, as noticed in the show cause notice itself. The fact that the petitioner is called upon to file the said explanation addressed to the adjudicating authority with the 2nd respondent does not in any manner alter the position that the petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation to the adjudicating authority only. From the above, it cannot be contended or surmised that the 2nd respondent alone will consider the explanation or rather conduct the enquiry or personal hearing and will not allow any of these things to be performed by the adjudicating authority himself. Such grievance must be ventilated on the actual occurrence of any of such infirmities and that too only as and when they happen and cannot be allowed to be projected on mere apprehensions and suppositions or surmises at this stage itself. Such grievance must be ventilated on the actual occurrence of any of such infirmities and that too only as and when they happen and cannot be allowed to be projected on mere apprehensions and suppositions or surmises at this stage itself. In fact, the stand taken in the counter-affidavit as also the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents leaves no doubts in this regard that all further proceedings including the enquiry or any hearing, will be conducted only by the adjudicating authority, viz. the 1st respondent, and not by the 2nd respondent. This itself, is a sufficient answer and safeguard, enough to reject the alleged grievance of the petitioner. 14For all the reasons stated above, the challenge made to the impugned notice fails and the writ petition shall stand rejected. It is made clear that any of the observations made in the course of the order need not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the claim of the respective parties which are left open with liberty to the competent authority as also to the petitioner to be vindicated for consideration in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No costs. In view of the fact that the main writ petition is rejected, the interim injunction granted in W.M.P. No. 11975 of 1994 is vacated and W.M.P. Nos. 11975 & 24245 of 1994 shall stand disposed of.