Delhi High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... vs Toyota Material Handling India Private ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~45 to 47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025
+ CUSAA 131/2022
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT AIR
CARGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Subham Kumar and
Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates.
versus
TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak and Mr. Kunal
Kapoor, Advocates.
46
+ CUSAA 134/2022 & CM APPL. 40459/2022
PR. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) AIR CARGO
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Subham Kumar and
Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak and Mr. Kunal
Kapoor, Advocates.
47
+ CUSAA 37/2023
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT AIR
CARGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Subham Kumar and
Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NAMITA CUSAA 131/2022 & conn. matters Page 1 of 5
DHYANI
Signing Date:20.05.2025
15:44:14
versus
TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak and Mr. Kunal
Kapoor, Advocates.
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 appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 are
filed by the Appellant assailing final order nos. 50061-50063/2022 dated 24th
January, 2022 (hereinafter 'impugned orders') passed by Customs, Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter 'CESTAT') in
Customs Appeals No. 51136, 50948 and 50949 of 2020. Vide the impugned
orders the CESTAT had followed the decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (18) SCC 563 (hereinafter 'Canon-I') and
had held that the DRI officers would not be proper officers for the purpose of
Customs Act, 1962.
3. However, the review petition against Canon-I being Review Petition
(Civil) No. 400/2021 was pending before the Supreme Court when the
impugned orders were passed. Even an adjournment was sought on the said
ground, however the same was rejected by the CESTAT. The relevant paras
are extracted hereunder :-
"8. It would thus be seen that the Supreme Court in Canon India
held that the entire proceedings initiated by the Additional
Director General, DRI by issuance of a show cause notice was
without any authority of law and was, therefore, liable to be set
aside.
16. The show cause notice dated 30.01.2009 issued by the
Principal Additional Director General, DRI under Section 28 of
the Customs Act is, therefore, without jurisdiction as the said
officer was not the proper officer and, therefore all proceedings
undertaken by the Department on this show cause notice is,
therefore, without jurisdiction. The order dated 29.05.2020 passed
by the Principal Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained.
17. The submission advanced by the learned authorised
representative appearing for the Department that the hearing of
this appeal should be deferred till the review petition filed by the
Department in Canon India is decided was considered by the
Karnataka High Court in Mohan C. Suvarna and rejected.
18. In this view of the matter, it would not be necessary to examine
the issues raised on the merits of the appeal.
19. Thus, Customs Appeal No. 50948 of 2020 and 50949 of 2020
filed by the assessee are allowed and Customs Appeal No. 51136
of 2020 filed by the Department is dismissed."
4. The assessees' appeals were consequently allowed.
5. As of today, the decision in the Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021
titled 'Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited',
(hereinafter, 'Canon-II') has now been rendered by the Supreme Court,
wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that DRI Officers would be
'proper officers' for the purposes of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. The observations in Canon-II as under :
"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. "
7. In view of the above, the matter would have to be relegated to CESTAT
for re-adjudication on merits. Therefore Customs Appeal Nos. 50948/2020
and 50949/2020 and 51136/2020 are restored to their original positions before
CESTAT. Parties to appear before the CESTAT on 16th July, 2025.
8. The matter shall now proceed on merits after taking into consideration
the decision in Canon-II.
9. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
10. The appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MAY 16, 2025/nd/Ar.
