Delhi High Court
M/S. Rani Enterprises vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08th April, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 11721/2021 & CM APPL. 36214/2021
M/S. RANI ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali
Jha Manish and Mr. Paras Aneja,
Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD,
PATPARGANJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Sr. Standing
counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal and
Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs. for
R-1 &3.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv. for DRI.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking release of the Petitioner's
goods seized by the Respondent by DRI, Lucknow Zonal Unit on 25th and
26th June, 2021. The Seizure Memo dated 26th June 2021 and an
investigation report dated 9th August, 2021 has been issued by DRI,
Lucknow Zonal Unit. Based on the said report and memo, Show Cause
Notice dated 25th October, 2021 has also been issued to the Petitioner.
3. The primary contention that the Petitioner raised vide this writ
petition is in respect of the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as 'proper officers'
to conduct proceedings under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt.
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (18) SCC 563(hereinafter 'Canon-
I'), which had held that DRI Officials were not 'proper officers' for the
purpose of Customs Act, 1962.
4. However, the Canon-I decision has been reviewed in Review
Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 titled 'Commissioner of Customs v. M/s
Canon India Private Limited', (hereinafter, 'Canon-II').
5. In Canon-II, the following findings have been rendered by the
Supreme Court:
"168.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
conclude that: [...]
(vi) Subject to the observations made in this
judgment, the officers of Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs
(Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise
Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise
and other similarly situated officers are proper
officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are
competent to issue show cause notice thereunder.
Therefore, any challenge made to the maintainability
of such show cause notices issued by this particular
class of officers, on the ground of want of jurisdiction
for not being the proper officer, which remain
pending before various forums, shall now be dealt
with in the following manner:
a. Where the show cause notices issued under
Section 28 of the Act, 1962 have been challenged
before the High Courts directly by way of a writ
petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of
such writ petitions in accordance with the
observations made in this judgment and restore
such notices for adjudication by the proper officer
under Section 28.
b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of
by the respective High Court and appeals have
been preferred against such orders which are
pending before this Court, they shall be disposed
of in accordance with this decision and the show
cause notices impugned therein shall be restored
for adjudication by the proper officer under
Section 28.
c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the
adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been
challenged before the High Courts on the ground
of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the
proper officer to issue show cause notices, the
respective High Court shall grant eight weeks' time
to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate
appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of
by the High Court and appeals have been preferred
against them which are pending before this Court,
they shall be disposed of in accordance with this
decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks'
time to the respective assessee to prefer
appropriate appeals before the CESTAT.
e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged
before this Court or the respective High Court on the
ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of
the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this
Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of
such appeals or writ petitions in accordance with the
ruling in this judgment and restore such notices to the
CESTAT for hearing the matter on merits.
f. Where appeals against the orders-in-original
involving issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the
proper officer to issue show cause notices under
Section 28 are pending before the CESTAT, they
shall now be decided in accordance with the
observations made in this decision."
6. In view of the above decision vide which DRI officials have now been
recognised as 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, 1962, this petition
would no longer survive. The show cause proceedings shall proceed in
accordance with law.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Adjudicating Authority
for necessary information.
8. The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH,
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 8, 2025/dk/Ar.
