9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the case of Canon Pvt. Ltd [ 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT ] in review petition. The respondent has filed a copy of the order in Union of India and Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [ 2022 (2) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT ] to show that the issue as to who would be the proper officer under Custom Act in light of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act has been found to consider by the Apex court. Since the petitioner is seeking quashment of show cause notice relying on Canon India Pvt. which is under review before the Apex Court, therefore, the respondent authority awaiting the final outcome of the aforesaid case has rightly sent the case of the petitioner to call book in the exercise of power under Section 28 (9A) of Customs Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No.DRI/ADJ/SCN/23/2021 O/o ADG-DRI-ADJN-Mumbai dated 30.12.2021 being illegal and arbitrary transferring still borene show cause notice to call book. c) To Allowed the writ petition. d) To pass such other or further order (s) and / or direction (s) as this Hon'ble may be fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. The petitioner is the proprietor firm of Shri Sanjay Punjabi who is a citizen of India. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) based on the information that M/s Rudras Overseas is indulging into undervaluation of imported goods i.e. nutrition supplements vide Bill of Entry No.5795615 dated 23.11.2019 from M/s Rax Trading Limited, Hong Kong, conducted a search at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct a raid and issue a show cause notice as they are not proper officer under Section 28 of Customs Act for reassessment as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (376) E.L.T. (S.C.) relying on the aforesaid decision, the aforesaid show cause notice is liable to be quashed. Another grievance of the petitioner is that adjudicating authority instead of determining the differential duty amount in accordance with the provision of section 28(9) of the Customs Act,1962 within the stipulated period of one year, by way of order dated 30.12.2020 has transferred the show cause notice to call book. The petitioner has submitted representations dated 29.11.2021 and 23.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n interim order of stay has been issued by the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or The Supreme Court; or (c) the Board has, in a similar matter, issued specific direction or order to keep such matter pending; or (d) The Settlement Commission has admitted an application made by the person concerned, the proper officer shall inform the person concerned the reason for non-determination of the amount of duty or interest under sub-section (8) and in such case, the time specificed in sub section (9) shall apply not from the date of notice, but from the date when such reason ceases to exist] The aforesaid section specifically provides that where the proper officer is unable to determine the amount of duty or interest under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi Dated the 17th of March, 2021. To Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Intelligence (DRI), New Delhi. Sir, Subject: Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19.03.2019 issued by DRI against Sh. Anil Aggarwal and 11 others Directions to keep SCN pending reg. Reference is invited to the letters from your office drawing attention to the judgement dated 09.03.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018 in the case of M/s Canon India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs. Vide the said judgement, the Hon`ble Apex Court has ruled that the Additional Director General (ADG) of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is not the proper office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/Customs (Preventive), 2.All Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners of Customs Central tax, 3.All Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of Customs/Customs (Preventive), 4.All Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of Customs Central tax, 5.All Principal Director Generals/Director Generals under CBIC. (Ananth Rathakrishnan) Deputy Secretary (Customs) Petitioner is not challenging the validity of this notification No.4/2021-Customs dated 17.08.2021 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs whereby the cases Shri Anil Agrawal and 11 others have been directed to be kept pending until further direction. The petitioner's case is similar to the case of Shri Anil Aggrawal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
