Customs confiscation upheld for bogus consignee and defective notice challenge where empowered officers acted under customs law.

Imported old and used cloths were held liable to confiscation where the declared consignee association and its representative were found not genuine: the bill of lading address differed from the registered address, no office existed at the stated location, the named representative was not connected with the governing body or founders, and no donor correspondence supported the claimed charitable import. The goods were therefore treated as improperly imported under customs law. A challenge to the show cause notice on competence also failed because officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had been empowered as customs officers, and the notice was not invalid merely because the wrong provision was cited when authority to act otherwise existed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported old and used cloths were liable to confiscation on the ground that the consignee association and its representative were not genuine and the goods were not imported for the stated charitable purpose. (ii) Whether the show cause notice and proceedings were vitiated for want of competence of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officer who issued the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the imported old and used cloths were liable to confiscation on the ground that the consignee association and its representative were not genuine and the goods were not imported for the stated charitable purpose.

Analysis: The address shown in the bill of lading differed from the registered address of the association, no evidence was produced to show that any office had been opened at the declared address, the named representative did not figure in the governing body or founder members, and no correspondence from the alleged foreign donor was placed on record. The explanation that the memorandum copy was only a draft was found unacceptable, and the absence of any claimant from the registered office supported the finding that the consignee and the claimed import on behalf of the society were not genuine. The goods were therefore treated as improperly imported and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice and proceedings were vitiated for want of competence of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officer who issued the notice.

Analysis: The Central Government had appointed officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence as customs officers under the relevant notification, and Section 124 of the Customs Act does not employ the expression "proper officer" in the manner relevant to the extended-period demand context considered in the relied-upon precedent. The misdescription of the provision invoked did not invalidate the exercise of power where the authority to act otherwise existed. The notice was therefore not vitiated on the ground of lack of competence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice was rejected in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the merits of confiscation and the jurisdictional objection, and the order of confiscation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts establish that the declared consignee is bogus and the import is not shown to have been made by the claimed charitable entity, confiscation under the Customs law is sustainable; further, a notice is not invalid merely because the wrong provision is cited if the issuing authority otherwise had the power to act and had been duly empowered under the statute and notification.

---