Delhi High Court
Shri Ajay Saini vs Intelligence Officer Dri Headquarters ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~95&96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08th April, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 4121/2022 & CM APPL. 12286/2022
SHRI AJAY SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv,
(M:9810026768)
versus
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DRI
HEADQUARTERS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr Gagan Vaswani,
Adv. for DRI.
96 AND
+ W.P.(C) 4453/2022 & CM APPL. 13290/2022
ANIL SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv.
versus
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI
(HEADQUARTERS) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr Gagan Vaswani,
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 seeking to quash the Seizure Memo dated 25th
August, 2018 has been issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(hereinafter 'DRI'), which has been challenged.
3. The primary contention that the Petitioner raises in this writ petition
is in respect of the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as 'proper officers' to
conduct proceedings under 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' for initiating/conducting proceedings under
the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the present petitions have become
infructuous.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the appeal is also pending
before the Commissioner (Appeals), hence the said appeal shall go on in
accordance with law.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Commissioner
(Appeals) for necessary information.
9. Both the petitions are disposed of. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH,
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 8, 2025/dk/Ar.
