2022 (2) TMI 636 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court to Decide 'Proper Officer' Status in Customs Act Interpretation

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a case concerning the interpretation of the term 'proper officer' under the Customs Act. The dispute revolves ... Jurisdiction - Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence can be treated as proper officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act read with Section 28 of the said Act or not - HELD THAT:- Section 6 of the Customs Act which has been found to be the repository of power to appoint a person to exercise the power under Section 28, according to the petitioners, is not relevant insofar as the Additional Director General of DRI is concerned for the reason that he is actually an officer of Customs. What is more, according to the special leave petition, it is stated that he has been authorised by the Board within the meaning of Section 2(34). More importantly, however, when questioned in this regard, it is pointed out that Section 28(11) would come to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason that the Additional Director General will be treated as ‘proper officer’ under the said provision irrespective of the requirement declared in Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. The case will stand listed on 08th March, 2022. Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'proper officer' under the Customs Act.2. Authority and powers of an Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Customs Act.3. Consideration of Section 28(11) in determining the status of the Additional Director General as a 'proper officer.'Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'proper officer' under the Customs Act. The High Court, in question, followed a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, where it was held that an Additional Director General of DRI cannot be considered a proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act read with Section 28. However, the contention raised by the learned Attorney General, supported by the Additional Solicitor General, is that the Additional Director General of DRI should be considered an officer of Customs. The argument is based on the authority provided under Section 6 of the Customs Act and the authorization by the Board under Section 2(34).2. The second issue pertains to the authority and powers vested in an Additional Director General of DRI under the Customs Act. The petitioners argue that despite the specific requirements under Section 2(34), the Additional Director General should be recognized as a 'proper officer' under Section 28(11) of the Act. It is emphasized that the provisions of Section 28(11) were not brought to the attention of the bench in the previous judgment, potentially altering the status of the Additional Director General in the context of Customs operations.3. Lastly, the consideration of Section 28(11) plays a crucial role in determining the status of the Additional Director General as a 'proper officer' for Customs-related matters. The petitioners assert that Section 28(11) provides a basis for treating the Additional Director General as a proper officer, irrespective of the specific definition under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. This statutory provision is highlighted as a key factor that could impact the interpretation and application of the law in cases involving officers of the DRI within the Customs framework.In light of the arguments presented and the potential implications of Section 28(11) on the status of the Additional Director General of DRI, the Supreme Court has decided to issue notice in the matter. The respondent's counsel has taken notice of the proceedings, and the case is scheduled to be listed for further hearing on 8th March 2022. The pending review of the judgment in Canon India Private Limited adds another layer of complexity to the legal considerations surrounding the role and designation of officers within the Customs framework, underscoring the significance of this case in clarifying the legal position on the matter.