So would you pull the Conductors thru the bottom of the wall and run a conduit up to the box?
When I was being trained in electrical work I became a fanatic for code compliance because I kept seeing such sloppy work being done on so many jobs. Now that I have been in the craft over fifty years I have mellowed. That does not mean I have gotten careless or even casual with compliance but it does mean that I am willing to be practical about existing installations.
"90.1 Purpose
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity."
Installing the right kind of conduit inside the garage would certainly be code compliant but I think it falls short of best practice. Conduit inside a garage is exposed to what the code calls "extreme physical damage" That is because motor vehicles might strike the conduit in the course of being parked in the garage. To address that concern you would cover the conduit with flanged V metal guards, install schedule Eighty NMC, or use rigid metallic conduit. It is better practice to run the cable or conduit either outside the structure or within the block wall.
Since the conductors in question are a feeder circuit that is protected by a circuit breaker against short circuit and overcurrent they come under the requirements of either
"ARTICLE 338
Service-Entrance Cable:
Types SE and USE"
or
"ARTICLE 340
Underground Feeder and Branch-Circuit Cable: Type UF"
Since the language of both articles is essentially the same in this regard I have quoted from "Article 340 Underground Feeder and Branch-Circuit Cable: Type UF"
"340.10 Uses Permitted
Type UF cable shall be permitted as follows:
(4) Installation Methods for Branch Circuits and Feeders.
(a) Interior Installations. In addition to the provisions of
this article, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior
wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Part II
of Article 334, excluding 334.80.
II. Installation
334.10 Uses Permitted
(A) Type NM. Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows:
(2) To be installed or fished in air voids in masonry block or tile walls
The fly in the ointment is,
"340.10 Uses Permitted
Type UF cable shall be permitted as follows:
(2) As single-conductor cables. Where installed as single conductor cables, all conductors of the feeder grounded conductor or branch circuit, including the grounded conductor and equipment grounding conductor, if any, shall be installed in accordance with 300.3.
300.3 Conductors
(A) Single Conductors. Single conductors specified in Table 310.104(A) shall only be installed where part of a recognized wiring method of Chapter 3."
Both Type SE & UF appear in that table. The upshot of all that is that the individual conductors should have been run in a complete raceway from the bottom of the trench to the point were it enters the cabinet of the Building Disconnecting Means. What seems to have gone wrong here is that the conduit stops at the bottom of the cavity in the cinder block wall. Since the individual conductors are laboratory listed to be used as cables when used underground the mistake is that they were pulled into the cinder block wall without further protection. I suspect that was an oversight on the inspectors part when the garage was built. Now that they are inside the cinder block masonry units I would not go to the trouble to pull them out and build an exterior conduit extension up to the back of the panel. When masonry is specifically formed and inspected or listed for use as a raceway; such as Cellular Concrete Floor Raceways; then the conductors are pulled into the cells in the concrete the same as any other raceway. Although the cavities in walls built of cinder block masonry units are not listed as raceways I was treating them as equivalent in this case. That said I will readily admit that the installation of the individual SE, USE, or UF conductor cables inside the cavities of the cinder block masonry units is not fully code compliant. What I am hanging my hat on in this case is the basic purpose, as written into the code itself, of code compliance. Again that is "the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity."
Others may disagree with that approach and take the position I would have taken when I was fairly new to the craft. Some would say that the only correct way to do this is to pull the conductors out of the wall and build a raceway from the bottom of the trench to the wall of the panel cabinet. I would not do that nor would I demand that of others when looking at the new work that does not include that feeder run. That said I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.