9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Competence of Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue Show Cause Notice under Customs Act, 1962
Analysis: The main issue in this case was whether the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DIR), Mumbai was competent to issue the Show Cause Notice dated 29/03/1993 under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal had relied on previous orders that were no longer valid in light of a subsequent Larger Bench judgment in the case of Konia Trading Co. The Larger Bench had held that officers of DRI appointed by the Central Government had the jurisdiction to act as a 'Proper Officer' in matters where Customs Officers were notified as such. The counsel also pointed out Notification No.19/89-Cus. (NT) dated 26th April, 1990, which designated the Assistant Director, DRI as the Proper Officer for certain regions in India. The court, after considering the legal submissions and the Larger Bench's judgment in the Konia Trading Co. case, agreed with the appellant's arguments. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner, Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was indeed competent to issue the show cause notice under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. As a result, the court answered the main question in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order with no order as to costs. Additionally, the court mentioned that the other two questions framed during the admission of the appeal did not require specific answers as they were deemed consequential in nature. This comprehensive analysis of the competence of the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act, 1962 highlights the legal arguments, relevant case law, and the final judgment of the Bombay High Court in this matter.
|
