2003 (4) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Whether the second respondent, a Senior Intelligence Officer, is a gazetted officer of customs.
3. Parallel jurisdiction of the first and second respondents under the Foreign Trade Act and the Customs Act.
4. Definition and scope of "smuggling" under the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, asserting that such jurisdiction lies with the first respondent under the Foreign Trade Act. The court emphasized that the High Court can intervene at the notice stage if an authority acts without jurisdiction, as supported by precedents (AIR 1999 SC 22 and 1985 (2) SCC 412). The court concluded that the second respondent had the authority to issue the notice, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim.

2. Whether the second respondent, a Senior Intelligence Officer, is a gazetted officer of customs:
The petitioner argued that the second respondent, being a Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), is not a gazetted officer of customs and thus cannot issue notices under Section 108. The court examined notifications, particularly Notification No. 31/97-Customs (N.T.), dated 7-7-1997, which appointed all DRI officers as customs officers under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. The court affirmed that the Senior Intelligence Officer is indeed a gazetted officer of customs, dismissing the petitioner's contention.

3. Parallel jurisdiction of the first and second respondents under the Foreign Trade Act and the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that the first respondent, under the Foreign Trade Act, should exclusively handle matters related to import and export under the duty-free scheme, arguing against the second respondent's parallel jurisdiction. The court found that the Foreign Trade Act and the Customs Act are complementary, not mutually exclusive. The court referenced precedents (AIR 1966 SC 197 and 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.)) to support the view that both authorities can operate concurrently without conflict, rejecting the petitioner's argument.

4. Definition and scope of "smuggling" under the Customs Act:
The petitioner argued that Section 108 of the Customs Act pertains only to smuggling, which they claimed did not apply to their case of improper import or export under the Foreign Trade Act. The court clarified that "smuggling" under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act includes any act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or 113. The court noted that Section 111(o) covers goods brought into India under unobserved conditions, supporting the issuance of the notice by the second respondent.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdiction and authority of the second respondent to issue the notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that issues related to the merits of the case should be addressed by the appropriate authority in accordance with the law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.