Customs prosecution sanction upheld where the officiating customs commissioner was treated as competent to grant approval.

Sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act was challenged as invalid because it was granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax rather than the statutory customs authority. The court treated the 07.03.2002 notification as validly bringing that officer within the role of Commissioner of Customs for the relevant jurisdiction, and held that an officer officiating as Commissioner of Customs could exercise the attached powers, including granting sanction. The objection based on Section 4(2) of the Customs Act was rejected, and the challenge to cognizance on the ground of defective sanction failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 was invalid because it was accorded by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax instead of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs empowered under the statute.

Analysis: The revision challenged the dismissal of the petition seeking discharge on the ground that previous sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not accorded by the competent authority. The Court held that the notification dated 07.03.2002 validly treated the Commissioner of Central Excise as Commissioner of Customs within the relevant jurisdiction, and that the officer officiating as Commissioner of Customs could exercise the powers attached to that office. The objection based on Section 4(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected, as that provision did not undermine the validity of the appointment or the consequent authority to accord sanction.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was not shown to be illegal, and the challenge to cognizance on that ground failed.

---