Tribunal rejects late jurisdictional challenge; validates DRI actions under Finance Act 2022

The tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications seeking to introduce additional grounds in the appeal, holding that the jurisdictional challenge could not be raised at the appellate stage due to delay and laches. The Finance Act, 2022, validated actions by DRI officers, including the issuance of Show Cause Notices, effectively overruling prior court decisions. The tribunal's decision was announced in open court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Show Cause Notice issued by DRI officers.
2. Jurisdictional challenge raised at appellate stage.
3. Impact of Finance Act, 2022 on actions taken by DRI officers.
4. Consideration of delay and laches in raising jurisdictional challenges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Show Cause Notice issued by DRI officers:
The applicants argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 25.03.2009 was not issued by a "proper officer" as defined under the Customs Act, 1962. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that DRI officers are not proper officers to issue SCNs under the Customs Act. The tribunal noted that the SCN was issued by the Additional Director General of DRI, which was found invalid in the Canon India case. However, the tribunal also considered the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, which validated actions taken by DRI officers.

2. Jurisdictional challenge raised at appellate stage:
The applicants raised the jurisdictional issue for the first time at the appellate stage. The tribunal referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Mamata Mohanty and Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Thiru R. Jambulingam, which held that jurisdictional challenges cannot be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings if the party had accepted the jurisdiction and participated in the proceedings without objection. The tribunal emphasized that the applicants had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the original authority and had participated in the proceedings since 2009.

3. Impact of Finance Act, 2022 on actions taken by DRI officers:
The tribunal highlighted the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022, which validated actions taken by DRI officers. Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, explicitly declared that actions taken under various chapters of the Customs Act by DRI officers are valid, notwithstanding any contrary court decisions. The tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2022, effectively overruled the Canon India judgment by validating the actions of DRI officers, including the issuance of SCNs.

4. Consideration of delay and laches in raising jurisdictional challenges:
The tribunal considered the delay and laches in raising the jurisdictional challenge. The applicants had not raised the issue before the original authority and sought to raise it at the appellate stage, many years after the SCN was issued. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kedar Shashikant Deshpande v. Bhor Municipal Council, which held that a party cannot challenge the jurisdiction of an authority in appellate proceedings if they had submitted to the jurisdiction earlier. The tribunal concluded that the applicants' delay in raising the jurisdictional issue was not justified.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications seeking to take additional grounds in the appeal. The tribunal held that the jurisdictional challenge could not be raised at the appellate stage due to delay and laches. Furthermore, the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022, validated the actions taken by DRI officers, including the issuance of SCNs. The tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court.

---