2017 (8) TMI 10 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) to issue SCN - Held that - the powers of officers working in these organizations to issue notice under Customs Act, 1962 as proper officers has been subject matter of decision by various High Courts - we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the question of jurisdiction first and thereafter on merit after the matter is settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the pending appeals by the Revenue against the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of DRI Officers:
The appeals in this case were against impugned orders resulting from proceedings initiated by the issuance of Show Cause cum Demand Notice by the officers of DRI/SIB/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). The primary issue that emerged was regarding the jurisdiction of DRI Officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellant contended that, based on a Supreme Court decision, DRI officers were not proper officers as per Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Post the Supreme Court's declaration, amendments were made to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowering Additional Director General, DRI as a proper officer from July 6, 2011. Subsequently, Section 28(11) was inserted with retrospective effect, assigning proper officer functions to various DRI officers. The issue of DRI officers' jurisdiction to issue show cause notices came before different High Courts, resulting in conflicting decisions. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the Delhi High Court's judgment, making the issue subjudice. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in another case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority to decide jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision and then on merits, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard and maintaining the status quo until the final decision.

2. Legal Precedents and Conflicting Decisions:
The judgment referred to various High Court decisions, including the Delhi High Court, Mumbai High Court, and High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, which had differing views on the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices. The conflicting decisions led to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. The Tribunal considered these precedents and conflicting judgments while deciding to remand the case for a final decision post the Supreme Court's ruling.

3. Remand and Status Quo:
In line with similar decisions by Co-ordinate Benches in similar cases, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority to first decide on jurisdiction and then on merit post the Supreme Court's resolution. The status quo was to be maintained during this interim period, ensuring fairness and procedural correctness in the adjudication process.

Overall, the judgment delved into the complex issue of jurisdiction of DRI officers under the Customs Act, considering legal precedents, conflicting decisions, and the need for a final resolution from the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for proper adjudication post the Supreme Court's ruling reflects a commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.