Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 518 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURTSeizure of goods - Gold and Silver were seized from the office and residential premises of the Petitioner - whether the respondents i.e. the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), are not authorized for initiating proceeding against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Chapter XIII of the Customs Act deals with “Searches, Seizure and Arrest”. Chapter XIII starts from Section 100 and ends to Section 110A. The Sections referred under Chapter XIII prescribe the proper Officer to initiate steps or an Officer of the Customs empowered in this behalf by general and special order to take appropriate recourse under the provisions of Chapter XIII - After the proceeding under Chapter XIII is carried out, comes the question of “Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc.” and which has been prescribed in Section 111 under Chapter XIV which deals with the “Confiscation of goods and conveyances and imposition of penalties”. Plain reading of the contents of the Notification dated 2.5.2012 makes it evident that the said Notification is only a Notification under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. This would also make clear that the Respondents have not been able to produce any Notification issued by the Central Government published in the Official Gazette under Section 6 of the Customs Act empowering the DRI also to exercise the functions of the Board or any Officer of the Board or any Officer of the Customs under the Customs Act - infact in the instant case there is no Notification issued under Section 6 of the Customs Act entrusting the functions under the Customs Act also upon the Officers of the DRI. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also had an occasion of dealing with a similar issue in KITCHEN ESSENTIALS & ORS. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2021 (10) TMI 1267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the challenge was to the proceeding initiated by the DRI asking the Petitioners therein to provide the details of the imports made by them and other information. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner is by the DRI. From the documents enclosed also, there is no dispute to the fact that the proceeding is not by the Customs Department or the officials of the Customs Department. Merely because one of the Officers in the search and seizure proceeding belongs to the Customs Department does not mean that the proceeding has been drawn by the Customs Department. All the proceedings in the instant case have been from the office of the DRI. It was never the case of the Respondents that the proceeding not being from the Department of DRI or for that matter the proceedings being drawn by the Customs Department - the plea and the defence taken by learned Assistant Solicitor General or for that matter the Department of DRI are not sustainable nor do it have any substantial force. This Court is inclined to allow the present Writ Petition and to hold that the issuance of Notice dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the subsequent Notices/Summons issued to the Petitioner are all without any authority of law and are therefore not sustainable - the Writ Petition is allowed.
|