https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106929 The Tribunal held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had jurisdiction to seize goods and issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Notification No. 19/90, contrary to the Commissioner's ruling. The Commissioner's reliance on the principle of comity of courts was deemed incorrect as the DRI operates under the Customs Act, not possessing quasi-judicial powers. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of imposing penalties upon confiscation of goods and reconsidering the fine imposed. The Commissioner's failure to order the recovery of interest was also noted. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-adjudication by the successor Commissioner. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106929 The Tribunal held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had jurisdiction to seize goods and issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Notification No. 19/90, contrary to the Commissioner's ruling. The Commissioner's reliance on the principle of comity of courts was deemed incorrect as the DRI operates under the Customs Act, not possessing quasi-judicial powers. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of imposing penalties upon confiscation of goods and reconsidering the fine imposed. The Commissioner's failure to order the recovery of interest was also noted. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-adjudication by the successor Commissioner. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106929