2017 (6) TMI 1301 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - HELD THAT - Similar issues have been dealt in various cases by the Tribunal. Recently, it is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the Original Authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Reference can be made to the decision in the case of M/S DOABA STUD AGRICULTURE FARM, SHRI YADVENDRA SINGH, PARTNER VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI (I G) 2017 (6) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under Customs Act

In this case, the main issue revolves around the jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellant argued that DRI officers were not proper officers as per the Customs Act, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Customs Act was subsequently amended, and a notification was issued assigning the functions of proper officer to DRI officers. However, conflicting decisions emerged from different High Courts on whether DRI officers had the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices. The matter was eventually taken to the Supreme Court for resolution. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the High Court of Delhi granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of Supreme Court appeals. Following the precedent set by the High Court of Delhi, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision. The appellant was granted an opportunity to be heard, and the status quo was to be maintained until a final decision was reached.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The evolution of the legal framework through amendments and notifications, along with conflicting interpretations by different High Courts, culminated in the matter being brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh decision, following the precedent set by the High Court of Delhi, demonstrates a cautious approach to ensure a fair and just determination of jurisdictional issues before proceeding to consider the merits of the case. The emphasis on providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard and maintaining the status quo reflects the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness inherent in legal proceedings.