TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals are filed assailing the same order in original [Impugned order] dated 17.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata and hence are being disposed of together. M/s Agarwal Graphic Machinery Pvt. Ltd. [Importer] (appellant in appeal C/75409/2014) is aggrieved by the rejection of the declared value of the imported goods, demand of differential duty along with interest and imposition of penalty on it. Smt. Sangeeta Bansal [Sangeeta] (appellant in appeal C/75406/2014), Shri Sanjay Bansal [Sanjay] (appellant in appeal C/75407/2014) and Shri Manoj Bansal [Manoj] (appellant in appeal C/75408/2014) are Directors of the importer. They are aggrieved by the personal penalties imposed on them. Shri Saikat Konar [Konar] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the SCN issued by the DRI. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellants Konar and Sarkar sought an adjournment which was not accepted by us because it was a batch matter and other appellants were all represented and were ready to argue their cases. Learned Counsel representing the importer, Sangeeta, Sanjay and Manoj submitted that while they had appealed on several grounds, those grounds need not be gone into because the SCN was issued under section 28 by ADG DRI. It has been held by a three-member bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India [AIR 2021 SC 1699] that DRI officers are not 'proper officers' to issue an SCN under section 28 of the Customs Act and the proceedings were quashed on that ground itself. This judgment of Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ELT A 98 (SC)] the judgment and order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thus, as on today, section 28(11) is valid and as per this section, DRI officers are proper officers to issue the notice. The validity of Section 28(11) was not considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India. Therefore, the impugned order may be upheld. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides with respect to competence of ADG DRI to issue the SCN which culminated in the impugned order. Learned Counsel was correct in pointing out that in Canon India Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that officers of DRI are not proper officers to issue the SCN demanding duty under section 28 as per section 2(34). Learned departmental representative was correct in pointing out th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n assessment already done under section 17 and such a power is not inherent in anyone but is specially conferred by section 28 on ´the proper officer'. Use of definite article 'the' shows that only one officer is competent to issue a notice in a case and that officer has to be the officer who did the assessment in the first place or his successor in office. 7. Undisputedly, in this case, since the assessment was done by the assessing officers in the Custom House, such officer who did the assessment or his successor in office is the proper officer and ADG DRI cannot be the proper officer and has no jurisdiction to issue the SCN demanding duty under section 28. Other person appointed as Customs officers under section 4(1) may be a pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Act. As a consequence of the above elucidation, the court held that the entire proceeding which was initiated by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence by issuing Show Cause Notices was invalid." (emphasis supplied) 9. The ratio of Canon India was followed by the Supreme Court, several High Courts and several benches of this Tribunal a few of which are as follows: Supreme Court 1. Commissioner of Customs vs Agarwal Metals and Alloys [2021(9) TMI316- Supreme Court] Madras High Court- Madurai bench 2. Quantum Coal Energy Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs [2021 (3) TMI 1034- Madras High Court] Karnataka High Court 3. Givaudan India Pvt. ....