TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 111 of the Customs Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The petitioner submitted an interim reply, dated 12.02.2018 through his counsel. There upon a Corrigendum dated 15.02.2018 was issued by the second respondent to the Show cause notice. The issuance of the Show cause notice by the second respondent is questioned in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.The case of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent is not vested with the jurisdiction to issue the impugned Show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act of 1962. It is not an exercise of power under Section 2(34) of the Act of 1962. Therefore, the personnel of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence named in such notifications have not been authorised to discharge any functions under the Act of 1962 by a conferment of authorization by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs exercising powers under Section 2(34) of the Act of 1962. The circular No. 4/99-Cus. dated February 15, 1999 is also not an exercise of powers under Section 2(34) of the Act of 1962. The Circular bearing No. 4/99-Cus. dated February 15, 1999 says that, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are competent and may issue show-cause notice in cases investigated by them.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the designated officers are proper officers. Such officers, in course of discharge of functions entrusted under Section 2(34) may come across materials requiring initiation of proceedings under Section 124 of the Act of 1962. Unless such officer is entrusted to invoke Section 124 by an appropriate order under Section 2(34), he cannot do so by saying that in discharge of functions entrusted to him under Section 2(34) he has come across materials requiring a proceeding under Section 124. Any other interpretation would render under Section 2(34) otiose." 4.No doubt the case law relied on by the writ petitioner's counsel is on the point. But then this is a decision of the Honourable Calcutta High Court and therefore it is not bindin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.19/90 - Customs (N.T.), dated the 26th April, 1990, the Central Government appoints the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below to be the [Principal Commissioner of Customs of Commissioner of Customs] the officers mentioned in column (3) thereof to be the Additional Commissioners of Joint Commissioners of Customs and Officers mentioned in column (4) thereof to be the Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Customs for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said Table with effect from the date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette:- TABLE Area of Jurisdiction D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to various sections of the Customs Act. Vide Notification No.17/2002, dated 07.03.2002 as amended by Notification No.82/2014, dated 16.09.2014, the Additional Director General of DRI is appointed as the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, on reading the notifications together, this Court has to necessarily held that the Additional Director General of DRI is also a proper officer to perform functions in connection with the various provisions of the Customs Act. 11.The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that Show cause notice cannot be issued by one authority and adjudication order passed by another authority. But this contention lacks merit in view of Section 122 of the Customs Act and the decisions in S.Kannan Vs....