Customs Officers empowered to arrest under Customs Act; DRI officers affirmed as 'proper officers'

The court held that Customs Officers can arrest individuals without following the procedure under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that Sections 154-157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to arrests made under the Customs Act. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers at Vapi and declared them as 'proper officers' under the Customs Act. The court also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India was not applicable to the case. Lastly, the court found no credible evidence to support allegations of harassment by DRI officials and advised against unnecessary summoning for interrogation. The writ-application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Arrest without following due procedure under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Arrest for cognizable offences without complying with Sections 154-157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers.
4. Whether DRI officers qualify as 'proper officers'.
5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India.
6. Allegations of undue harassment by DRI officials.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arrest without following due procedure under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that no arrest can be made under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 without following the procedure under Section 28. The court held that a Customs Officer can arrest any person if there is reason to believe that an offence punishable under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A, or 136 has been committed. The Customs Officer is not required to follow the procedure under Section 28 for arrest.

2. Arrest for cognizable offences without complying with Sections 154-157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner contended that arrest for cognizable offences under the Customs Act, 1962 should comply with Sections 154-157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court clarified that Sections 154-157 of the Code do not apply to arrests made under the Customs Act. The Customs Officer, after arresting a person, must inform the person of the grounds for arrest and take the person to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay.

3. Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers:
The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of DRI officers at Vapi to issue summons. The court noted that the DRI officers are appointed as officers of Customs with jurisdiction over the whole of India as per notifications dated 7th July 1997 and 7th March 2002. Therefore, the DRI officers at Vapi have the jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Whether DRI officers qualify as 'proper officers':
The petitioner argued that DRI officers are not 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, 1962. The court referred to various notifications and amendments, including the Finance Act, 2019, which clarified that DRI officers are 'proper officers' for the purposes of the Customs Act, 1962. The court concluded that DRI officers are indeed 'proper officers' and have the authority to issue show-cause notices and conduct investigations.

5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India:
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash, which dealt with the bailability of offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962. The court clarified that Om Prakash focused on whether offences under these Acts are bailable or non-bailable. The decision does not apply to the present case as it dealt with a different context and the provisions of the Customs Act have been amended since then.

6. Allegations of undue harassment by DRI officials:
The petitioner alleged harassment by DRI officials at Vapi. The court found no credible material to substantiate these allegations. However, the court advised that if no further inquiry is necessary, the petitioner should not be unnecessarily summoned for interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Final Conclusions:
1. Customs Officers can arrest without following the procedure under Section 28.
2. Sections 154-157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to arrests under the Customs Act.
3. DRI officers at Vapi have jurisdiction to issue summons.
4. DRI officers are 'proper officers' under the Customs Act.
5. The decision in Om Prakash does not apply to the present case.
6. Allegations of harassment are not substantiated, but unnecessary summoning should be avoided.

The writ-application was disposed of accordingly.

---