TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India. Petitioner No. 1 is, inter alia, engaged in the business of imports of power tools and its parts and accessories. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are directors of Petitioner No. 1. 2. On the basis of an intelligence that various importers were evading customs duty by mis-declaring the value of the imported goods, an investigation was initiated by the officers of Respondent No. 2. Search action was conducted at the premises of the Petitioners and their customs broker. During the course of search, various documents and electronic records were seized in terms of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Act") by the officers of Respondent No. 2. Further, statements of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded by the Directorate of Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal release of the goods. 5. The Petitioners, by their letter dated 3rd February 2021, replied to the Show Cause Notice and denied the allegations made therein against the Petitioners. 6. Further, by a letter dated 27th March 2021, the Petitioners relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2021 SCC Online SC 200 and submitted that Respondent No. 2 was not a proper officer to issue the impugned Show Cause Notice under Section 28 of the Act and requested Respondent No. 3 to drop the proceedings. 7. A personal hearing was fixed before Respondent No. 3 on 4th March 2024. The Petitioners, by their email dated 4th March 2024, submitted that no reply was received from the Resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents to refrain from taking any further steps or proceeding pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing no. DRI /HQ-CI/50D/ENQ-16/(INT-26)/2018-CI dated 31.12.2020 (Exhibit A herein); 10. Mr. Balani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that Respondent No. 2, not being the proper officer under the Act, could not have exercised powers for issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Act. He submitted that the same was not maintainable under the statute and deserved to be termed as illegal. 11. Mr. Balani submitted that this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason, the Show Cause Notice could not be taken forward. In the meantime, the Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). What has been laid down by the Supreme Court in such decision is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The adjudicating officer is thus bound by the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision. The Petitioners can certainly raise such plea placing reliance on the said decision of the Supreme Court, and in that case it would be incumbent for the adjudicating officer to consider the applicability of the said decision, and if so applicable, abide by the said decision in adjudicating the said Show Cause Notice dated 31st December 2020. In the....