Court affirms jurisdiction of Additional Director General to issue show cause notice under Customs Act.

The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the second respondent, an Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, to issue the show cause notice under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. It held that the second respondent was designated as the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, based on relevant notifications and legal precedents. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to conclude the matter concerning the seized goods within a specified timeline as per the Customs Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 124 of the Customs Act regarding the issuance of show cause notice.
3. Designation of the second respondent as the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the second respondent
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the second respondent, an Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), lacked the authority to issue such notice. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing the requirement for proper authorization under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act for officers to discharge specific functions. However, the court noted that the Calcutta High Court decision was not binding precedent. The court highlighted the importance of the proper officer, as defined in Section 2(34), for issuing show cause notices.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 124 of the Customs Act
Section 124 of the Customs Act mandates the issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation of goods under Section 122 and before adjudication under Section 122. The court emphasized that only the proper officer, as defined in Section 2(34), could issue such a notice. The court analyzed the appointment of officers of customs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Customs Act to determine the designation of the second respondent as the proper officer.

Issue 3: Designation of the second respondent as the proper officer
The court examined notifications, including No.17/2002 and subsequent amendments, appointing DRI officials as officers of customs. The court concluded that the second respondent, being the Additional Director General of DRI, was designated as the proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The court also considered other notifications, such as No.40/2012, which further confirmed the designation of the second respondent as a proper officer. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention regarding the authority of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice, citing relevant legal precedents.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice. The court directed the first respondent to finalize the matter concerning the seized goods within a specified timeline in accordance with the Customs Act.

---