9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4(2) governs only authorisation of the officers enlisted therein by the Board to appoint officers below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs; whereas notification dated 07.03.2002 was issued to classify the officers and appoint Commissioner of Customs. Before amending Section 4(1) on 11.05.2002, it was the Central Government and not the Board the authority to appoint officers of Customs. Hence, the notification dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Central Government is quite valid. The notification dated 07.03.2002 says that the Commissioner of Central Excise to be the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within their respective jurisdiction as specified under Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thus there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... around 4.45 A.M. the superintendent of Customs, Air Intelligence unit, International Airport, Trivandrum intercepted the 1st accused who had arrived by the Flight EK-522 at the Customs exit gate on the basis of a specific intelligence that a passenger arriving by Emirates Flight EK-522 from Dubai to Trivandrum would be trying to smuggle gold into the country by concealing on his person/checked in baggage. On examination of his travel documents, it was found that he was holding Indian Passport with No. K3486772 dated 12.03.2012. He was also in possession of boarding pass issued by M/s. Emirates from Dubai to Trivandrum by flight No. EK- 522 dated 25.10.2014 with seat No. 17F, Electronic Ticket Number ETKT1765853064943 and Indian customs decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like Principal Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs, the sanction accorded in this case by an officer who held only charge and not by the officer empowered by the statutory provision is illegal. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs on the other hand would submit that the Central Government by notification dated 07.03.2002 notified the Commissioner of Central Excise to be the Commissioner of Customs and therefore the officer accorded sanction has every empowerment under Section 137 of the Customs Act. To that, the learned counsel for the petitioners would answer that the Central Government cannot exercise the powers of empowerment of various officers of customs for, Section 4(2) enables only the Central Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Therefore the decisions namely 1979 KHC 668 (SC)- S.B. Saha Others vs. M.S.Kochar, 2001 KHC 1149 (SC) - P.K.Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim, 2015 KHC 4473 (DC)- Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 1990 KHC 307- E.K. Thankappan vs. Union of India, 1979 KHC 528-Ratila Banji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1966 KHC 374- Mohammed Safi vs. State of West Bengal and 2005 KHC 1892- State of Karnataka vs. C.Nagarajaswamy, on which the petitioners place reliance for the proposition that a prosecution without valid sanction, where sanction for prosecution is mandatory, have no application in this case. Accordingly, this Crl.Rev.Pet. is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to raise their contention as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
