9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1165 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction of proper officer in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether reliance can placed on the Notification No. 17/2002-Customs (N.T.) dated 07.03.2021 whereby and where-under the Board has appointed 'Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence', as the Commissioner of Customs? HELD THAT - Prima facie, a view can be taken that Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence' though an officer of the Central Government, is not under the jurisdiction of the Board. Therefore, Board could not have appointed such an officer, as an officer of Customs - Further, a view can be taken that such notification, in fact, is required to be issued by the Central Government and not by the Board. In Canon India Private Limited 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court has held the notification to be invalid, having been issued by' an authority, which had no power to do so in purported exercise of powers under a section, which does not confer any such power. Issue notice.
Issues: Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962 by Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Jurisdiction of officer to issue notice - Validity of appointment as Commissioner of Customs.
Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Act, 1962 The writ petition challenges a show cause notice dated 27.06.2020 issued by the Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit. The notice seeks to confiscate gold bars and impose penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argues that the Additional Director General is not an 'Officer of Customs' and therefore lacks the authority to issue such a notice without the approval of an officer of Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner relies on Section 124 of the Act, which mandates that notices must be issued by authorized customs officers. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of officer to issue notice The petitioner's counsel refers to relevant sections of the Customs Act, including Section 3 which outlines the classes of officers of customs, Section 4 which empowers the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to appoint customs officers, and Section 6 which allows the Central Government to entrust customs functions to other government officers. The counsel also cites a recent Supreme Court decision in CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, arguing that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be considered officers of Customs as per the law. Issue 3: Validity of appointment as Commissioner of Customs In response, the Additional Solicitor General argues that the Additional Director General has been designated as 'Commissioner of Customs' under Notification No.17/2002-Customs(N.T.) dated 07.03.2002. It is contended that the issue before the Supreme Court in the CANON INDIA case was different and that the Additional Director General has the authority to issue show cause notices under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The petitioner disputes this interpretation, referring to the Supreme Court's examination of the notification in the CANON INDIA case and asserting that the appointment as Commissioner of Customs is invalid. In conclusion, the High Court finds that there are significant questions regarding the authority of the Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The Court raises doubts about the validity of the appointment as Commissioner of Customs and decides to issue notices to the respondents for further proceedings. The Court also restrains any consequential steps based on the impugned notice until the next hearing date.
|
