<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405056</link>
    <description>The SC held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) lacked authority to issue show cause notices under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of duties when goods were already cleared by a Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The Court emphasized that Section 28(4) empowers only &quot;the proper officer&quot; (not &quot;any proper officer&quot;) who assessed the goods at clearance, distinguishing between definite and indefinite articles in statutory interpretation. The DRI&#039;s notification purporting to grant such powers was invalid as it was issued without statutory authority under Section 6. Additionally, the extended limitation period of five years was unavailable as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer who had transparently declared camera specifications during first check. The cameras were validly cleared under Exemption Notification No.15/2012. The entire DRI proceeding was set aside as invalid, and demands were quashed. Appeal allowed in favor of appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405056</link>
      <description>The SC held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) lacked authority to issue show cause notices under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of duties when goods were already cleared by a Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The Court emphasized that Section 28(4) empowers only &quot;the proper officer&quot; (not &quot;any proper officer&quot;) who assessed the goods at clearance, distinguishing between definite and indefinite articles in statutory interpretation. The DRI&#039;s notification purporting to grant such powers was invalid as it was issued without statutory authority under Section 6. Additionally, the extended limitation period of five years was unavailable as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer who had transparently declared camera specifications during first check. The cameras were validly cleared under Exemption Notification No.15/2012. The entire DRI proceeding was set aside as invalid, and demands were quashed. Appeal allowed in favor of appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>