9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 100 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - power to issue SCN - Confiscation of seized item - Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 - case of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent is not vested with the jurisdiction to issue the impugned Show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that - Section 124 of the Customs Act talks about issuance of Show cause notice before confiscation of goods under Section 122 and before adjudication is done under Section 122 of the Act - A reading of the provision as a whole leads to the irresistable conclusion that it is only the proper Officer who can issue the show cause notice. What this Court must see is whether the second respondent has been designated as the Officer of Customs and whether he has been also designated as the proper officer in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act. Section 4 of the Customs Act talks about appointment of Officers of Customs and Section 5 talks about their powers - The second respondent herein is the Additional Director General of DRI and he is referred to in the Column 2. In view of the aforesaid notification, dated 07.03.2002 as amended by subsequent notification dated 16.09.2014, the petitioner will have to be considered as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs have been notified as proper officer in relation to various sections of the Customs Act. Vide Notification No.17/2002, dated 07.03.2002 as amended by Notification No.82/2014, dated 16.09.2014, the Additional Director General of DRI is appointed as the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, on reading the notifications together, this Court has to necessarily held that the Additional Director General of DRI is also a proper officer to perform functions in connection with the various provisions of the Customs Act. The contention of the petitioner s counsel that the second respondent herein does not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice cannot be accepted - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 124 of the Customs Act regarding the issuance of show cause notice. 3. Designation of the second respondent as the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the second respondent The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the second respondent, an Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), lacked the authority to issue such notice. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing the requirement for proper authorization under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act for officers to discharge specific functions. However, the court noted that the Calcutta High Court decision was not binding precedent. The court highlighted the importance of the proper officer, as defined in Section 2(34), for issuing show cause notices. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 124 of the Customs Act Section 124 of the Customs Act mandates the issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation of goods under Section 122 and before adjudication under Section 122. The court emphasized that only the proper officer, as defined in Section 2(34), could issue such a notice. The court analyzed the appointment of officers of customs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Customs Act to determine the designation of the second respondent as the proper officer. Issue 3: Designation of the second respondent as the proper officer The court examined notifications, including No.17/2002 and subsequent amendments, appointing DRI officials as officers of customs. The court concluded that the second respondent, being the Additional Director General of DRI, was designated as the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The court also considered other notifications, such as No.40/2012, which further confirmed the designation of the second respondent as a proper officer. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention regarding the authority of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice, citing relevant legal precedents. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice. The court directed the first respondent to finalize the matter concerning the seized goods within a specified timeline in accordance with the Customs Act.
|
