Court sets aside show cause notices, grants refund, and denies jurisdiction of DRI officers.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the show cause notices and subsequent demands confirmed by the original orders. It held that DRI officers lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and that the proceedings were without any authority of law. The Court also granted consequential relief by way of refund or release of seized goods, if any. No order as to costs was made, and all pending applications were disposed of.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Maintainability of writ petitions in the presence of alternative remedies.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication without considering Supreme Court judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of DRI Officers:
The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that, as per the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Canon India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (AIR 2021 SC 1699), officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not "proper officers" to initiate proceedings under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the show cause notices issued by DRI officers were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The Court agreed with this contention, noting that the entire proceedings initiated by DRI officers lacked jurisdiction and were invalid. The Court referenced Sections 2(34) and 6 of the Customs Act, which define "proper officer" and the functions of customs officers, respectively. The Court concluded that DRI officers, not being specifically assigned these functions, could not issue show cause notices under Section 28 or 124 of the Customs Act.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies, as the petitioners had already filed appeals against the original orders. The Court, however, cited the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, which allows the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite the availability of alternative remedies in cases where there is a violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of principles of natural justice. The Court found that the case fell within these exceptions, particularly due to the lack of jurisdiction of the DRI officers and the violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the adjudication of the show cause notices was done in violation of principles of natural justice, as they were not granted the right to cross-examination and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali (2011) 3 SCC 537 and Canon India Private Ltd. were not considered. The Court noted that the adjudicating authority ignored these Supreme Court judgments, which was a violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice were not followed, making the proceedings and subsequent demands void ab initio.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the show cause notices and subsequent demands confirmed by the original orders. It held that DRI officers lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and that the proceedings were without any authority of law. The Court also granted consequential relief by way of refund or release of seized goods, if any. No order as to costs was made, and all pending applications were disposed of.

---