Who is proper officer under section 28 of customs Act ?
It is necessary that the answer
must flow from the power conferred by the statute i.e. under Section 28(4) of
the Act. This Section empowers the recovery of duty not paid, part paid or
erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or
suppression of facts and confers the power of recovery on “the proper officer”.
The obvious intention is to confer the power to recover such duties not on any
proper officer but only on “the proper officer”.
There are only two articles ‘A’
and THE’. `A (or an)’ is known as the Indefinite Article because it does not
specifically refer to a particular person or thing. On the other hand, ‘the’ is
called the definite Article because it points out and refers to a particular
person or thing. There is no doubt that, if Parliament intended that any proper
officer could have exercised power under Section 28 (4), it could have used the
word ‘any’ - Parliament has employed the article “the” not accidently but with
the intention to designate the proper officer who had assessed the goods at the
time of clearance.
If it was intended that officers
of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are officers of Central
Government should be entrusted with functions of the Customs officers, it was
imperative that the Central Government should have done so in exercise of its
power under Section 6 of the Act. The reason why such a power is conferred on
the Central Government is obvious and that is because the Central Government is
the authority which appoints both the officers of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence which is set up under the Notification dated 04.12.1957 issued by
the Ministry of Finance and Customs officers who, till 11.5.2002, were
appointed by the Central Government - The notification is obviously invalid
having been issued by an authority which had no power to do so in purported
exercise of powers under a section which does not confer any such power.
The entire proceedings in the
present case initiated by the Additional Director General of the DRI by issuing
show cause notices in all the matters are invalid without any authority of law
and liable to be set-aside.
M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SUPREME COURT, decided on 09.03.2021
Please Visit :https://eximblogs.blogspot.com/
# Customs Law
Quick Bites-50
F.No.450/72/2021-Cus-IV
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs
******
Room No.227B, North Block, New
Delhi
Dated the 17th of March, 2021
To
Principal Additional Director
General,
Directorate General of
Intelligence (DRI),
New Delhi.
Sir,
Subject: Show Cause Notice (SCN)
dated 19.03.2019 issued by DRI against Sh. Anil Aggarwal and 11 others –
Directions to keep SCN pending –reg.
Reference is invited to the
letters from your office drawing attention to the judgement dated 09.03.2021 of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018 in the case of M/s
Canon India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs. Vide the said
judgement, the Hon`ble Apex Court has ruled that the Additional Director
General (ADG) of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is not the proper
officer to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) under sub-section (4) of section 28 of
the Customs Act, 1962. The Apex Court has concluded that the entire proceeding
in the present case initiated by ADG (DRI) by issuing SCN, as invalid and
without any authority of law. The Apex Court has accordingly set aside the
subject SCN.
2. Further, attention is drawn to
the specific reference for seeking Board’s direction with respect to SCN dated
19.03.2019 against Sh. Anil Aggarwal and 11 others where the adjudication of
the SCN would get barred by the limitation of time on 18th March, 2021 under
sub-section (9) of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, on account of the
inability to proceed further due to the said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
3. The matter has been examined.
The implications of the said judgement are under active examination in the
Board. Therefore, the Board has decided that for the present and until further
directions, the said SCN may be kept pending.
4. Further, all the fresh SCNs
under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of cases presently being
investigated by DRI are required to be issued by jurisdictional
Commissionerates from where imports have taken place.
5. Difficulties, if any, may
please be brought to the notice of Board. Hindi version follows.
Yours faithfully,
(Ananth Rathakrishnan)
Deputy Secretary (Customs)
