Jurisdiction of officer issuing show cause notice validated for DRI officers after retrospective notification; prior cases follow pre-amendment law

Jurisdiction to issue show cause notices turns on whether investigative officers were validly assigned customs functions; notifications dated 26 April 1990 and subsequent instruments are held to vest such officers with the status of proper officers, validating their competence to initiate proceedings. Legislative amendment recognizing preexisting appointments and giving retrospective effect altered earlier case law that denied jurisdiction. The practical consequence is that notices and seizures effected by those officers are sustainable under the validated notifications, while matters initiated before the substitution of the provision remain governed by the preamendment legal position.

---

---

Issues: Whether subsection (11) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Government/Board notifications validate and render officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) competent as "proper officers" with power of assessment under Section 17 to issue show-cause notices under Section 28, and whether the challenge to the impugned show-cause notice on grounds of lack of competence is maintainable.

Analysis: Section 28(11) was inserted by Act 14 of 2011 w.e.f. 16.9.2011 providing that persons appointed as officers of Customs under subsection (1) of section 4 before 6.7.2011 shall be deemed to have and always had assessment powers under Section 17 and to have been proper officers for purposes of Section 28. Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and related Board/Central Government notifications (including Notification No. 19/89-Cus.(NT) dated 26.4.1990 and the notification dated 6.7.2011) appoint and assign DRI officers as Customs officers and specify functions including assessment and reassessment. Explanation 2 to Section 28 deals with which pre-assent cases continue under the earlier provision and is distinct from the competence conferred by subsection (11). The statutory amendment and existing notifications operate to validate the appointment/assignment of DRI officers as proper officers and to confer retrospective competence to issue notices under Section 28.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 28(11) and to the impugned show-cause notice for lack of competence fails; subsection (11) together with the Notifications validate and render DRI officers competent to issue the show-cause notice. The writ petition is dismissed.

---