Customs drawback recovery jurisdiction upheld where DRI notice and Commissioner adjudication were held legally valid.

DRI officers validly appointed as Customs officers under the Customs Act could issue show-cause notices for drawback recovery, and the proceedings were not without jurisdiction merely on that basis. The Commissioner's adjudication was also not illegal because section 5(2) permits a superior Customs officer to exercise the powers and duties of a subordinate officer, even though the drawback rules contemplated adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner. The cited jurisdictional and procedural precedents did not assist the challengers on the facts. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed, and the recovery orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notices issued by DRI officers and adjudication by the Commissioner were without jurisdiction in proceedings for recovery of drawback under the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995.

Analysis: The DRI officers had been appointed as Customs officers by a Central Government notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore their initiation of proceedings could not be treated as an assumption of jurisdiction by themselves. Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 enabled a Customs officer to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of a subordinate officer, so adjudication by the Commissioner was not illegal merely because the notice was answerable to the Additional Commissioner or because the drawback rules contemplated adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court also held that the cited precedents on jurisdiction and mandatory procedure did not assist the appellants on the facts.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the recovery orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Central Government has validly empowered DRI officers as Customs officers and the Customs Act permits a superior Customs officer to exercise the powers of a subordinate officer, proceedings are not vitiated merely because the notice was issued by DRI or adjudicated by the Commissioner instead of the Assistant Commissioner.

---