2021 (10) TMI 598 - AT - Customs

Tribunal invalidates Show Cause Notices by DRI officer under Customs Act 1962

M/s. Modern Insecticides Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana

The Tribunal held that the Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana lacked authority to issue Show Cause Notices under the Customs Act, 1962. Relying on ... Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General (DRI) to issue SCN - proper Officer to issue SCN u/s 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962 or not - HELD THAT:- In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA VERSUS M/S. AGARWAL METALS AND ALLOYS [2021 (9) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court has follow up the decision of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT] and it is held that the Additional Director General, DRI is not a proper Officer within the meaning of Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana is not a proper Officer to issue Show Cause Notice under Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Jurisdiction of Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana to issue Show Cause Notice under Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:Issue: Whether Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana is having jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice under Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962 or not.The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana to issue the Show Cause Notice. The appellant contended that the Additional Director General did not have the authority to issue such notices. The appellant relied on various judicial decisions to support this argument. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Canon India P. Ltd., examined whether an Additional Director General of the DRI, appointed as an officer of Customs, had been entrusted with the functions under Section 28 as a proper officer under the Customs Act. The Court analyzed a notification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs assigning functions under the Customs Act to various officers. The Court found that the notification was invalid as it was issued under a section that did not confer such power. The Court emphasized that specific entrustment of functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs is necessary to determine whether an officer of customs is a proper officer.The Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts followed the decision in Canon India P. Ltd., holding that the Additional Director General, DRI, is not a proper Officer within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Customs Act. Therefore, the Tribunal, in line with these decisions, held that the Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana, lacked the authority to issue the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the jurisdictional issue regarding the authority of the Additional Director General, DRI, Ludhiana, to issue Show Cause Notices under the Customs Act, 1962, was based on legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and subsequent decisions. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the judicial interpretations and set aside the impugned proceedings due to the lack of authority of the concerned officer.