9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 706 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials as proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 to issue SCN - HELD THAT - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT which had held that DRI Officials were not proper officers for the purpose of initiating/conducting proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962. In view of the above decision vide which DRI officials have now been recognised as proper officers for initiating/conducting proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 this petition would no longer survive. The show cause proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is the jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials as 'proper officers' under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to issue show cause notices and conduct proceedings. The petitioners challenged the authority of DRI officials based on a previous Supreme Court decision, Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that DRI officials were not 'proper officers' for such purposes. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Jurisdiction of DRI Officials as 'Proper Officers' Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the authority of 'proper officers' to issue show cause notices for customs duty evasion. The Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Canon-I) initially ruled that DRI officials were not 'proper officers' under this section. However, this was revisited in a review petition (Canon-II), where the Supreme Court provided a more expansive interpretation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's findings in Canon-II, which clarified that DRI officials and similar officers are indeed 'proper officers' for the purposes of Section 28. The Supreme Court's decision effectively reversed the earlier Canon-I ruling, thereby validating the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court did not delve into specific evidence as the issue was primarily legal and jurisdictional, hinging on the interpretation of the term 'proper officers' as adjudicated in Canon-II. Application of Law to Facts: Given the Supreme Court's clarification in Canon-II, the Court applied this legal interpretation to the facts of the case, concluding that the show cause notices issued by DRI officials were valid and within their jurisdiction. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners' argument, based on the Canon-I decision, was rendered moot by the subsequent Canon-II ruling. The Court did not need to engage in further analysis of competing arguments, as the Supreme Court's decision in Canon-II was definitive. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitions challenging the jurisdiction of DRI officials were unsustainable in light of the Canon-II decision. The show cause proceedings were to continue in accordance with the law, recognizing DRI officials as 'proper officers' under Section 28. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon-II, DRI officials are recognized as 'proper officers' for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. This holding aligns with the Supreme Court's directive that all pending challenges to the jurisdiction of such officers should be disposed of in accordance with this interpretation. Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the interpretation of statutory terms such as 'proper officers' can be subject to judicial review and clarification by higher courts, as demonstrated by the transition from Canon-I to Canon-II. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The petitions were dismissed, and the show cause notices were upheld as valid. The Court directed that the proceedings should continue in accordance with the law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Canon-II.
|
