TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant to the appellant is as follows: "(vii) I impose under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh only) on Shri Ajit Singh which should be recovered from him forthwith." 2. The background to this appeal is that officers of the Commissionerate of Customs (Prev), New Delhi received information that M/s. M C Overseas was mis-declaring the Retail Sale Price of the air conditioners which it was importing to evade Customs duty. Acting on it, they searched various premises, made seizures and recorded statements of various persons and concluded that M C Overseas had, indeed, mis-declared the value of the goods imported under 11 Bills of Entry. A Show Cause Notice dated 13.09.2012 was issued to M/s. M C Overseas and others including the appellant herein proposing to reject the declared value, reassess the value of the goods, recover differential duty under section 28(4) of the Act along with interest, confiscate goods and impose penalties. The SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner (Adjudication) New Custom House, New Delhi by an order dated 31.12.2013. On appeal by four appellants, this Tribunal, by Final Order No. 58374-68377/2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proper officer because he was not assigned the functions of assessment under section 17 either by the Board or by the Commissioner of Customs and only the officer who is the proper officer for assessment under section 17 can issue a demand under section 28 of the Act. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows: "13. Section 2(34) of the Act defines a "proper officer", thus: "2.Definitions.-...............(34)"proper officer", in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs; It is clear from a mere look at the provision that only such officers of customs who have been assigned specific functions would be "proper officers" in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act. Specific entrustment of function by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs is therefore, the governing test to determine whether an "officer of customs" is the "proper officer". 14. From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and re-assessment of duty in the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said Act to mean the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Commissioner of Customs. Recently, a question has arisen as to whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) is competent to exercise and discharge the powers of a proper officer for issue of a notice for the demand of duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed Ali and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4294-4295 of 2002) held that only a customs officer who has been specifically assigned the duties of assessment and re-assessment in the jurisdiction area is competent to issue a notice for the demand of duty as a proper officer. As such the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who has not been assigned the function of a "proper officer" for the purposes of assessment or re-assessment of duty and issue of show cause Notice to demand Customs duty under Section 17 read with Section 28 of the Act in respect of goods entered for home consumption is not competent to function as a proper officer which has not been the legislative intent. 2. In view of the above the Show Cause Notices issued over the time by the Customs officers such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Group (appraiser or Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner) of the Custom House, the officers of the preventive Commissionerates who have jurisdiction over the area, the central excise officers who may have been notified as customs officers in the area, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who have jurisdiction over the area, etc. 12. In Cannon India vs. Commissioner of Customs [2021(3) TMI 384- Supreme Court], the Supreme Court held as follows: 13. Where the statute confers the same power to perform an act on different officers, as in this case, the two officers, especially when they belong to different departments, cannot exercise their powers in the same case. Where one officer has exercised his powers of assessment, the power to order re-assessment must also be exercised by the same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank. In our view, this would result into an anarchical and unruly operation of a statute which is not contemplated by any canon of construction of statute. 14. It is well known that when a statute directs that the things be done in a certain way, ....