This is a petition, in which the petitioners jointly have impugned 21 show-cause notices (Anexures A/1 to A/21) issued by the Deputy Controller of Customs (Valuation) under section 32 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 on the allegation that the petitioners obtained the clearance of the consignments covered by the above show-cause notices by filing false declarations. It seems that according to the petitioners the above show-cause notices were issued on the basis of a telex allegedly received from the owner of Messrs Amardas Champi Ltd. Part, Bangkok, Thailand. In the proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of the above show-cause notices, the petitioners moved an application before the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valuation) praying that a Commission be issued to examine the partner or a representative of the above firm as the said firm had disowned the alleged telex, inter alia, through their letter dated 26th May, 1982. The petitioners' above request has been declined by the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valuation) and, therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition.
2. In support of the above petition the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that since the Deputy Controller of Custom (Valuation) i. e. Respondent No, 1 is not providing fair opportunity to the petitioners to meet the allegations contained in the above show-cause notices the petitioners have to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been Nther contended that in case the respondent No, 1 will impose penalty, the petitioners may not be in a position to pay the same on account of the huge amount.
' In our view the above contentions are devoid of any force. In case the respondent No, 1 has declined to issue the commission for examining Messrs Amardas Champi Ltd., the petitioners are free to move another application before the respondent No, 1 requesting him to permit the petitioners to produce the witness at their own cost on the date of hearing. Even if the above request of the petitioners is declined, they may challenge the adverse order if any passed by respondent No, 1 in an appeal which is provided tinder the Customs Act or may take up the matter in revision. In our view we cannot interfere at this stage when the proceedings are still in progress and it cannot be said with certainty whether the order of respondent No, 1 will be against the petitioners or will be in their favour.
' For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed in limine.