{"id":334761,"date":"2024-11-09T11:00:24","date_gmt":"2024-11-09T05:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=334761"},"modified":"2024-11-13T11:20:06","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T05:50:06","slug":"cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> While deciding whether the exposition of law propounded by the Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Commr. of Customs<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/pk5EJy6O\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2021) 18 SCC 563<\/a> as regards the power of the DRI to issue show cause notices could be said to be the correct statement of law? The 3-Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJ., <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">JB Pardiwala*<\/span> and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> judgment <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">was rendered without looking into<\/span> the Circular dated 15-02-1999 issued by the Central Board of Excise &amp; Customs (CBEC) which empowered the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a>, as well as Notification dated 06-07-2011 which assigned the functions of the &#8216;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper officer<\/span>&#8217; for the purposes of Sections 17 and 28 of the Customs Act, respectively to the officers of DRI. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">This seriously affected the correctness of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further held that decision <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">erroneously recorded the finding<\/span> that since DRI officers were not entrusted with the functions of a proper officer for the purposes of Section 28 in accordance with Section 6, they did not possess the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for the recovery of duty under Section 28 of Customs Act. This was so because <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> failed to consider the statutory scheme of Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565549\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2(34)<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565601\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> respectively.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Allowing the review petition, the Court <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">clarified<\/span> that it <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">only considered and reviewed the decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> to the extent that it pertains to the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28<\/span>. The observations made by Supreme Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> on the aspect of limitation have neither been considered nor reviewed by way of this decision. Thus, this decision will not disturb the findings insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, it was held that officers of DRI, 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 of Customs Act and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder.<\/p>\n<h3>Issues before the Court:<\/h3>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p>Whether officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are the proper officers for the purposes of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>What would be the extent, scope and domain of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565613\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">6<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> vis-&agrave;-vis Section 2(34), Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 of the Customs Act, and whether an entrustment by the Central Government under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565613\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">6<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> is mandatory to empower the Officers of the DRI for the purpose of issuing show cause notices?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Whether the power under Section 28 can be exercised only by someone who is empowered to exercise the power under Section 17 of the Act, 1962 for the goods in question? In other words, how best the meaning of the expression &#8220;proper officer&#8221; should be construed for the purposes of exercise of functions under Section 28?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Whether &#8220;the proper officer&#8221; in Section 28 must necessarily be the same proper officer referred to under Section 17 of the Act, 1962? If no, whether the use of the definite article &#8220;the&#8221; in the expression &#8220;the proper officer&#8221; in Section 28 is in the context of that proper officer who has been assigned the powers of discharging the functions under Section 28 by virtue of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Act, 1962?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Whether issuance of show cause notices followed by adjudication under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 is an administrative review as held in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> or a quasi-judicial exercise of power under administrative law?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Whether the introduction of Section 28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause notices issued under Section 28 with effect from 06.07.2011, is discriminatory and arbitrary for not curing the defect highlighted in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Commr. of Customs v. Sayed Ali<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/OB067oa8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2011) 3 SCC 537<\/a>, and, therefore, is violative of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">14<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Whether the judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/q350V6Iy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2016) SCC Online Del 2597<\/a> expounds the correct interpretation of Section 28(11)?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Whether Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125641\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">97<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a>, which retrospectively validates the show cause notices with effect from 01.04.2023, is manifestly arbitrary and therefore, violative of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">14<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Assessment:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Vis-a-vis power to review, the Court pointed out that if a court is oblivious to the relevant statutory provisions, the judgment would in fact be per incuriam. In such circumstances, a judgment rendered in ignorance of the applicable law must be reviewed. The Court said that, &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">It is not in dispute that Canon India (supra) is based on the decision of this Court in Sayed Ali<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">(supra). We say so because in Canon India (supra), the petitioner had not questioned the jurisdiction of the officers of DRI either before the departmental authorities or before the Tribunal<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Decision rendered in Sayed Ali (supra)<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> after referring to Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> as it stood during the period in dispute, had concluded that from a conjoint reading of Section 2(34) and Section 28 of the 1962 Act, it was manifest that only such customs officer was competent to issue notice under Section 28, who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected, either by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act, 1962.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The 3-Judge Bench in the present case observed that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> proceeds on the assumption that for the &#8220;proper officer&#8221; to exercise the functions under Section 28 of the Act, 1962, such officer must necessarily possess the power of assessment and reassessment under Section 17. However, a plain reading of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act, 1962 does not bring out any such inter-dependence between the two provisions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Perusing the statutory scheme, the Court opined that the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">observations pertaining to the interlinkage between Sections 17 and 28 respectively of the Act, 1962 made in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> do not lay down the correct position of law<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further pointed out that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> could not have been relied upon by the Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> as it could not have been applied for the period subsequent to 08-04-2011 because Section 17 of the Act, 1962 has undergone a radical change by virtue of the amendments made by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002927401\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Changes to Section 17 w.e.f. 11.04.2011 &#8212; the assessment of bill(s) of entry and shipping bill<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565546\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">17<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> was amended by Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001527084\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">38<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002927401\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2011<\/a> with effect from 08-04-2011. The amendment altered the method of assessment of bill(s) of entry and shipping bill(s). <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">This change appears not to have been brought to the notice of the Court while <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> was heard<\/span>. The &#8220;proper officer&#8221; appointed for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act, 1962 under a notification issued under Section 2(34) of the Act, 1962 could only make a re-assessment of the bill(s) of entry and shipping bill(s) in case they did not agree with the self-assessment of the importer or the exporter as the case may be.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court pointed out that changes in Section 17 highlight that the competence of the proper officer to conduct &#8220;assessment&#8221; is completely taken away by the legislature vide the amendment to Section 17. The new Section 17 empowers the proper officer to perform the functions of verification of self-assessment and subsequent re-assessment, if found necessary. However, such re-assessment is not a mandatory function on the same footing as &#8220;assessment&#8221; under the old Section 17. Therefore, the Court opined that the scope of the functions of the proper officer under the new Section 17 is limited.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Scheme of Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565546\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">17<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Section 17 read with Sections 46 and 47 of the Act, 1962 deals with the assessment and reassessment at the first instance, that is, upon entry of the consignments and clearance of bill(s) of entry. The amendment to Section 17 introduces the process of self-assessment and subsequent reassessment upon verification by the proper officer, if so required, for undertaking a check at the first instance. The procedure envisaged under Section 28 is in the nature of a quasi-judicial proceeding with the issuance of the show cause notice by the proper officer followed by adjudication of such notices by the field customs officers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">It was noted that in the case of DRI, the proceedings under Section 28 start only after an investigation has been undertaken by DRI. This is reaffirmed by Circular dated 15-02-1999 and Circular dated 23-11-2011. Therefore, the nature of review under Section 28 is significantly different from the nature of assessment and reassessment under Section 17. The ambit of Section 28 has also been restricted to the review of assessments and re-assessments done under Section 17 for ascertaining if there has been a short-levy, non-levy, part payment, non-payment or erroneous refund.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">With the afore-stated statutory scheme, the Court was unable to subscribe to the view taken in both <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span>, namely, that the vesting of the functions of assessment and re-assessment under Section 17 is a threshold, mandatory condition for a proper officer to perform functions under Section 28. The Court thus opined that the scheme of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act, 1962 indicates that there cannot be a mandatory condition linking the two provisions and the interpretation in the cases of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> were patently erroneous.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Use of the article &#8216;the&#8217; in the expression &#8220;the proper officer&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that a definite article &#8220;the&#8221; has been used before &#8220;proper officer&#8221; with a view to limit the exercise of powers under Section 28 by a specific proper officer and not any proper officer. However, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">in the absence of any statutory linkage between Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565546\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">17<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> respectively, there was no legal footing for the Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> to hold that &#8220;the proper officer&#8221; in Section 28 must necessarily be the same proper officer referred to under Section 17 of the Act, 1962<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The use of the article &#8220;the&#8221; in the expression &#8220;the proper officer&#8221; should be read in the context of that proper officer who has been conferred with the powers of discharging the functions under Section 28 by conferment under Section 5.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">DRI officers as Proper Officers under section 2(34)<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court emphasised that finding in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span> that an officer from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not an officer of customs and therefore cannot function as a &#8220;Proper Officer&#8221; was erroneous.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565549\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2(34)<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a> also stood amended under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a>. The view that the &#8220;Proper Officer&#8221; for the purpose of Section 28 and other provisions of the Act, 1962 could only mean the person who cleared the goods or the officer who succeeds such officer and not any other officer from any other department requires reconsideration in view of the changes to the Act, 1962 vide the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002927401\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2011<\/a> and also in the light of Section 4 and the notification issued thereunder. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Court in paragraphs 11 to 15 of Canon India (supra) proceeded on the footing that under the provisions of the Act, 1962, the Board has no power to appoint &#8220;Proper Officers<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Presently, the Court noted that as per Section 4 of the Act, 1962, the Board constituted under the provisions of Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963 is vested with the power to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be &#8220;officers of customs&#8221;. Under Section 4(1)(1) of Customs Act the Board may appoint such person as Officers of Customs as it thinks fit. Under Section 4(2) of the Act, 1962 the Board can even authorize a Chief Commissioner of Customs or a Joint or Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Customs to appoint any officers below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs as an &#8220;officer of customs&#8221;. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">It was noted that this aspect was also not brought to the notice of the Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Observations on the constitutional validity of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28(11)<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court took of Delhi High Court&#8217;s case <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/q350V6Iy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2016) SCC Online Del 2597<\/a>, wherein the specific challenge was to the constitutional validity of Section 28(11) of the Act which was inserted by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000016736\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011<\/a>. Division Bench of the High Court held that Section 28(11) could not validate the show cause notices issued by the DRI officers prior to 08-04-2011, i.e., the date when Section 28 was amended.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Similarly, the afore-stated Validation Act was challenged before Bombay High Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sunil Gupta v. Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/713oQ1BT\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2014) SCC Online Bom 1742<\/a>. Bombay High Cour held that the position dealt with by insertion of Section 28(11) is distinct and that is about competence of the officer. The High Court stated that, &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The officers namely those from the DRI having been entrusted and assigned the functions, they are deemed to have been possessing the authority, whether in terms of section 28 unamended or amended and substituted as above<\/span>&#8221;. Since the decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sunil Gupta (supra)<\/span> was anterior in time, the same was relied before the High Court of Delhi during the hearing in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mangali Impex (supra)<\/span>. However, the High Court of Delhi did not agree with the view taken therein.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the instant case, analysing the modifications made by the Parliament in Section 28, Customs Act, the Court expressed certainty that none of the changes made by the amendments to Section 28 has any impact on the competence of the proper officer for the purposes of fulfilment of functions under Section 28. The Court opined that the only major change that warrants the clarification provided under Explanation 2 is the distinction with respect to the limitation period for the issuance of show cause notices. The Court further stated that there is no overlap in the field of operation of Section 28(11) and Explanation 2, the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in Section 28(11) and the consequent harmonious construction of the two provisions in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mangali Impex (supra)<\/span> is otiose.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court expressed its agreement and thereby affirmed the view taken Bombay High Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sunil Gupta (Supra).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Hence, the Court was of the view that enactment of Section 28(11) cures the defect pointed out in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sayed Ali (supra)<\/span> and the judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mangali Impex (supra)<\/span> deserves to be set aside as it failed to take into account the policy being followed by the Customs department since 1999 which provides for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all other proper officers once a show cause notice by a particular proper officer is issued. It could be said that this policy provides a sufficient safeguard against the apprehension of the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the same assessee under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001565560\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">28<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780399\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Customs Act, 1962<\/a>. Therefore, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Section 28(11) is constitutionally valid, and its application is not limited to the period between 08-04-2011 and 16-09-2011.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;\">Amendments made by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125641\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">97<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a> inter-alia, retrospectively validated all show cause notices issued under Section 28 of Customs Act. The Court pointed out that it is a settled position of law that the legislature is empowered to enact validating legislations to validate earlier acts declared illegal and unconstitutional by courts by removing the defect or lacuna which led to the invalidation of the law. With the removal of the defect or lacuna resulting in the validation of any act held invalid by a competent court, the act may become valid, if the validating law is lawfully enacted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court found that the ouster of jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notices under Section 28 once an assessment has been done under Section 17 is not a defect at all in light of Notification No. 44\/2011 dated 06-07-2011 and new Section 17 as amended by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002927401\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2011<\/a>. This notification <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">specifically assigned the functions of the proper officers under Sections 17 and 28 to DRI officers<\/span>. Such assignment of functions of assessment is sufficient for the DRI officers to fall in the category of &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">any other officer who has been assigned the function of assessment<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Therefore, the validating provision under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125641\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">97<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a> was a mere surplusage with respect to validation of the show cause notices issued by DRI officers under Section 28. Hence, the Court held that Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125641\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">97<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a> is constitutionally valid. It was <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">clarified<\/span> that findings in respect of the vires of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a> is confined only to the questions raised in the petition seeking review of the judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Canon India (supra)<\/span>. The challenge to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001125644\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Finance Act, 2022<\/a> on grounds other than those dealt with herein, if any, were kept open.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Court further laid down elaborate steps to deal with any challenge to the maintainability of show cause notices issued<\/span> by DRI, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers, on ground of lack of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Commr. Of Customs v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Review Petition No. 400 of 2021, decided on 7-11-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<hr\/>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Petitioner:<\/span> Mr. N. Venkataraman, Additional Solicitor General of India<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Respondent:<\/span> Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Sr. Advocate<\/p>\n\n--><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-overflow: ellipsis; background-color: #92A8D1; text-align:justify; clear:both; text-size-adjust: auto; overflow: auto;\">\n<p style=\"font-size: 18pt; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center;\">CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n<table width=\"100%\" style=\"word-wrap: break-word; border-collapse:collapse; table-layout: fixed; margin-top: 10px;\">\n<colgroup>\n<col width=\"41%\"\/>\n<col width=\"59%\"\/>\n<\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Citation:<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-size: 10pt;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/FUVMdP6J\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2024 SCC OnLine SC 3188<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Appellants&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Commr. Of Customs<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Respondents&#160;:<\/span><br \/> Canon India Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span><br \/> Mr. N. Venkataraman, Additional Solicitor General of India<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span><br \/> Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Sr. Advocate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"font-size: 12pt; margin-top: -20px; margin-left: 5px;\"><span style=\"color: #D4E4F7; font-weight: bold;\">CORAM&#160;:<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"banner\" style=\"overflow: hidden; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; padding-left: 3%;\">\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><a><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/4.-chandrachud-modified-1.png\" alt=\"Dr DY Chandrachud, CJ.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%;\"><br \/><span style=\"color: black !important;\">Dr DY Chandrachud, CJ.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/12\/know-thy-judge-justice-jb-pardiwala-supreme-court-gujarat-high-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/WhatsApp-Image-2022-05-09-at-6.14.52-PM-modified.png\" alt=\"JB Pardiwala, J.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%; border:2px solid #FF5733; padding: 1px;\"><br \/><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">JB Pardiwala, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<p><a><img decoding=\"async\" height=\"100px\" width=\"100px\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scobserver.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Manoj-Misra-Circle.png\" alt=\"Manoj Misra, J.\" style=\"border-radius: 50%;\"><br \/><span style=\"color: black !important;\">Manoj Misra, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;\">\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"\" style=\"max-width: 100%; max-height: 100%;\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Constitution of India &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ebcwebstore\/images\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition-Gopal-Sankaranarayanan-ebc-front-cover.JPG\" alt=\"Constitution of India\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294438\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications issued which empowered the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":334764,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[29538,63760,75067,55020,48679,2531,18281],"class_list":["post-334761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-customs","tag-directorate-of-revenue-intelligence","tag-dri-officers","tag-justice-jb-pardiwala","tag-proper-officer","tag-Revenue","tag-show-cause-notice"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: SC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-11-09T05:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-13T05:50:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: SC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-09T05:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-13T05:50:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"DRI officers\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: SC","description":"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court","og_description":"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-09T05:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-13T05:50:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/","name":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: SC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp","datePublished":"2024-11-09T05:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-13T05:50:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"The Court noted that the 2021 decision was rendered without taking note of the relevant statutory scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and government circulars and notifications.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"DRI officers"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/09\/cannon-india-2021-erred-dri-officers-are-not-proper-officers-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"DRI Officers are \u201cproper officers\u201d; can issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Customs Act: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/DRI-officers.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":262184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/22\/customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":0},"title":"[Customs Act] Raj HC | DRI officer is not Competent Authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as \u201cproper officer\u201d; Show cause notice set aside","author":"Editor","date":"February 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kumar, CJ and Sameer Kureshi, J. allowed the writ petition and set aside the proceedings issued by show cause notice and subsequent demands confirmed by OIO.\u00a0 The case of the petitioner is that he is a Customs House Agent and the co-petitioners\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":334945,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/12\/tax-investigators-can-adjudicate-too-deconstructing-the-recent-supreme-court-verdict\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":1},"title":"Tax Investigators can Adjudicate Too? Deconstructing the Recent Supreme Court Verdict","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Tarun Jain*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Experts Corner&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tax Investigators can Adjudicate","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Tax-Investigators-can-Adjudicate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Tax-Investigators-can-Adjudicate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Tax-Investigators-can-Adjudicate.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Tax-Investigators-can-Adjudicate.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299700,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/20\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-show-cause-notice-not-falling-within-ambit-s28-customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside show cause notice not falling within the ambit of Section 28 (9A)(c) of Customs Act","author":"Arunima","date":"August 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 28 provides a window of five years from the relevant date within which proceedings under the said provision may be initiated. The proceedings so initiated are liable to be ended in accordance with the statutory timelines which stand out in sub-section (9).","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":309887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/22\/delhi-high-court-dismiss-petition-seeking-probe-over-invoicing-adani-essar-group-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses plea by Centre for PIL and Harsh Mander seeking probe into alleged over invoicing by Essar Group, Adani Group among others","author":"Arunima","date":"December 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitions are premised upon a show cause notice issued by DRI promulgating that the intelligence has indicated that various entities of Adani Group and Essar Group were indulging in gross over-valuation of imported goods (zero or low duty rated) to siphon off money abroad from Public Listed Companies.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":377457,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/06\/reconstructed-dvd-inadmissible-as-evidence-under-customs-act-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":4},"title":"Unverified DVD inadmissible as evidence under Customs Act, 1962; can\u2019t be used to implicate individual: CESTAT","author":"Bharti","date":"March 6, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Electronic record, in the form of the DVD could not be treated as admissible evidence, in the absence of any verification as to its genuineness, veracity or reliability from the original electronic device by\/from which these are created, for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114-AA, Customs Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Reconstructed DVD inadmissible as evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351215,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/21\/art-24-aifta-not-deprive-customs-authorities-to-issue-show-cause-notice-bomhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":334761,"position":5},"title":"Read why Bombay HC held that Article 24 of AIFTA did not deprive customs authorities to issue show cause notices","author":"Editor","date":"June 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner, Purple Products, imported Tin Ingots manufactured from Malaysia, with a valid Certificate of Origin and based on such certification, it claimed and availed benefits under Customs Exemption Notification No. 46 of 2011, dated 1-6-2011, from time to time.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=334761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334761\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/334764"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=334761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=334761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=334761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}