# M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria v. U.O I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1668
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1085 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-sultan-tanneries-leather-products-p-ltd-deoria-v-u-o-i-ors-48471
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
Sri
Dhananjay
Awasthi,
Sri
Sudarshan Singh

A. Civil Law - CGST Act 2017 - Court is
frequently coming across writ petitions in which
impugned orders reflect non-observance of
principles of natural justice and eve reply
submitted by assesses is not being considered
by Assessing Officers under the faceless regime
as well as non-faceless regime under the Act,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 47,388. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of."

31. Both the Courts below had rightly
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffsappellants, which needs no interference by
this Court. No substantial question of law is
made out.

32. Second appeal fails and is, hereby,
dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1668
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ Tax No. 1085 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1092 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1096 of 2021

M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products
(P) Ltd., Deoria ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
Sri
Dhananjay
Awasthi,
Sri
Sudarshan Singh

A. Civil Law - CGST Act 2017 - Court is
frequently coming across writ petitions in which
impugned orders reflect non-observance of
principles of natural justice and eve reply
submitted by assesses is not being considered
by Assessing Officers under the faceless regime
as well as non-faceless regime under the Act,
1961.
B. Taxpayers are important pillars of economy of
the country. Their harassment not only causes
jolt to the economy of the country and also
employment and also comes in the way of
economic policy of the Government including
the policies "Ease of Doing Business". The
instructions dated 23.04.2022 issued by the
CBDT in exercise of powers conferred u/S 119 of
the Act, 1961 and St.ment made by the
Respondent No.04 in the afore quoted Para 10
of the personal affidavit dated 19.05.2022 needs
to be implemented truly and effectively and,
therefore, necessary mandamus needs to be
issued to the respondents.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of
Customs 2021 SCC Online SC 200

2. Commissioner of Customs Vs Syed Ali
(2011)3 SCC 537

3. Swati Menthol & allied CHEM Ltd. Vs Jt.
Director, DRI (2014)(304) ELT 21(Gujarat)

4. Pahwa Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of
Central Excise, New Delhi (2005)2 SCC 720

5. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I &
anr. Vs M/s Parman Iron Pvt. Ltd. Bijnor 2011(2)
ADJ 83(DB)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J. )

1. These writ petitions raise common
issue and questions of law, therefore, they
are being decided by a common order. The
Writ Tax No.1085 of 2021 (M/s Sultan
Tanneries and Leather Products Vs. Union
of India and others) is treated as the leading
writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri Rahul Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the
Respondent,
Directorate
of
Revenue
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1669
Intelligence (DRI) and Sri Amit Mahajan
and Sri Ashok Singh, learned Senior
Standing Counsels appearing for Central
Goods and Service Tax/Central Excise,
Kanpur.

3. The challenge raised in this writ
petition is to the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise,
Kanpur, the Respondent No.4 to adjudicate
the show cause notice dated 22.06.2011
issued by the Commissioner of Customs
(Expert) Jawahar Lal Nehru, Customs
House, Nhava Sheva, Tal Vran, District
Raigarh, Maharashtra, Respondent No.2,
under the Customs Act, 1962. The
challenge is based on the premise that the
Respondent No.4 is neither a proper officer
nor is competent to pass any order under
the Customs Act, 1962 in as much as the
Respondent No.4 was merely assigned the
jurisdiction by the order of the Board dated
20.11.2012 and cannot, therefore, be an
officer appointed under Section 4(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962. Further, the Parliament
in its wisdom has enacted the Central
Goods and Service Act, 2017 w.e.f.
01.07.2017
and
consequent
to
such
enactment,
there
remains
no
officer
designated as "Commissioner of Customs,
Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur".
The Commissioner of CGST and Central
Excise, Kanpur and "Commissioner of
Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax
Kanpur" are two different officers, the
former being a non-existent and the later
being not the "Proper Officer" under
Section 2(34) or an officer appointed under
Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and
thus lacking jurisdiction to adjudicate the
proceedings under Section 28 of the
Customs Act pursuant to the impugned
show cause notice dated 22.06.2011.
Accordingly, a relief to quash the further
proceedings, pursuant to the show cause
notice dated 22.06.2011 issued by the
Respondent No.2 so far as it relates to the
petitioner,
has
been
sought.
In
the
alternative, a direction in the nature of
mandamus has been sought to direct the
Respondent No.4 to proceed with the
adjudication of the show cause notice only
after
making
available
the
documents/evidences etc. sought to be
summoned by the petitioner vide its
submission dated 09.02.2021 and affording
an opportunity of cross examination of the
witness relied upon by the DRI.

4. The facts shorn of unnecessary
details relevant for the purpose of deciding
the writ petition briefly stated are that the
petitioner is a company engaged in the
business of manufacture and export of
finished
leather
having
IEC
No.0688000932. During the period of
01.04.2006 to 30.11.2009, the petitioner
exported four consignments of finished
leather through Nhava Sheva Port, Navi
Mumbai to different buyers in Italy. The
exports were described as "finished leather
made out from buffalo hides" in all the
shipping bills, Invoice, Packing List and
Certificate of origin. The exports were
classified as "Finished Leather of all kinds"
under Chapter Heading 4107 of the
Schedule II (Export Policy) of ITC (HS).
The exports being finished leather was free
(without any restrictions) provided the
leather confirmed to the specifications
under Public Notice of Government of
India,
Ministry
of
Commerce
dated
27.05.1992 (Public Notice No.3). The
Officers of the DRI on the strength of some
statements tendered before them by some
quality Inspector for some Italian Buyers in
India
concluded
that
the
shipments
exported by the petitioner to the Italian
Buyers were not of finished leather: but of
Semi finished leather and the petitioner has
1670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
availed inadmissible exemption of export
duly @ 60% during the period 01.04.2006
to 30.11.2009 along with inadmissible
export incentives of duty drawback and
DFIA
Schemes.
Consequently,
the
petitioner was served with the impugned
show cause notice dated 22.06.2011 by the
Respondent No.2 directing the petitioner,
its Directors, its CHA's transferees of DFIA
License and to whomsoever concerned to
show cause as to why;

(i) Goods having declared FOB
value of Rs.1,59,69,201/- should not be
confiscated;

(ii) Export duty amounting to Rs.
95,81,520/- should not be recovered along
with interest;

(iii) The amount of DFIA benefits
availed against respective lincenses in
respect of shipping Bill should not be
denied and the licenses themselves may not
be recommended for cancellation;

(iv) Import duty forgone of
Rs.1,89,47,771/- should not be demanded
and recovered along with interest and the
goods
so
imported
should
not
be
confiscated; and

(v) Penalty should not be imposed
jointly and severally under Sections 114,
114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act.

5. By order dated 20.11.2012 issued by
the Board, the Respondent No.3 was
appointed
as
Common
Adjudicating
Authority. However, the matter was kept
pending and on 13.01.2020 a notice came to
be issued by the Superintendent CGST and
Central Excise, Kanpur Intimating the date of
personal hearing before the Respondent No.3.
The petitioner on receipt of the Notice is
stated to have filed a detailed objection
alleging incompetence of the Respondent
No.4 to adjudicate the matter in terms of
Section 32(4) of the Customs Act, which
objections are stated to be pending. Besides,
the above objections the petitioner is stated to
have filed detailed written submissions dated
09.02.2021 with request to be made available
all documentary evidences and for affording
opportunity to cross examine which too is
stated to be pending consideration with the
respondents.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has
assailed the show cause notice dated
22.06.2011 as also the entire proceedings
consequent
thereto
principally
on
the
following grounds:-

(i) The Respondent No.4 has no
authority in law to adjudicate the show cause
notice dated 22.06.2011 and the Respondent
No.2 has no authority in law to issue the
impugned
show
cause
notice
dated
22.06.2011.

(ii) The Respondent No.2 is not
competent to issue show cause notice under
Section 75 of Customs Act read with Rule 16
of the Drawback Rules, 1995.

(iii) Proposal for confiscation and
imposition of penalties consequential to
demand under Section 28 and 75 of
Customs Act and Rule 16 of Drawback
Rules, 1995 are bad in law

(iv) The demand of export duty is
not sustainable on merits.

(v) The demand of import duty is
not sustainable on merits.

(vi) Section 28AAA of the
Customs Act cannot be invoked.
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1671

(vii) Once the authorisation was
issued by DGFT with open eyes, the
respondents cannot question the benefits
extended under the authorisations.

(vii) The show cause notice is
otherwise bad in law.

Submissions of the Petitioner:

7. It is vehemently contended by Sri
Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the writ petitioner that order under
Section 28 of the Customs Act and Rule 16 of
the Drawback Rules can be passed only by a
"Proper Officer" as defined under Section
2(1) of Customs Act while adjudication of
confiscation and penalties can be done by an
"Adjudicating Authority" as defined under
Section 2(34) of the Customs Act. Section 3
of the Customs Act provides for classes of
Officers
of
Customs
which
includes
Commissioner of Customs etc. and the
Respondent No.4 does not fall under any of
the class of officers specified under the said
section. Section 4 of the Customs Act confers
power on the Board to appoint such persons
as it thinks fit to be the officer of Customs but
no notification under Section 4 has yet been
issued notifying the Respondent No.4 as an
officer of Customs. Likewise under Section 6
of the Customs Act, the Central Government
is empowered to entrust either conditionally
or unconditionally, to any officer of the
Central Government or State Government or
a local authority any functions of the Board
or any officer of Customs under the Act but
till date no such notification has been issued
by the Central Government entrusting the
Respondent No.4 with any function of the
Officer of Customs.

8. He further submits that the
Respondent No. 4 was earlier appointed as
"Commissioner of Central Excise" under
the Central Excise Act, 1944 and upon the
enactment of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), the
Respondent No. 4 will be deemed to be an
officer appointed under CGST Act by
virtue of Section 3 of the CGST Act and
thus cannot be called a ""Proper Officer""
or "adjudicating authority" under the
Customs
Act.
Consequently,
the
assumption of jurisdiction to proceed under
the impugned notice is wholly without
jurisdiction and without authority of law.
Reliance has been placed upon Para 22 of
the decision of the Apex Court in Canon
India
Private
Limited
versus
Commissioner of Customs (2021 SCC
Online SC 200) to buttress the above
submissions wherein the Apex Court held
that the Notification No. 40 of 2021 dated
02.05.2021 as 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 Para No. 22 of the decision is
quoted here-under:

"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 which purports to entrust
functions as proper officer under the
1672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Customs Act has been issued by the Central
Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of
non-existing power under Section 2 (34) of
the Customs Act. 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."

9. Reliance is also placed upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs versus Sayed
Ali [2011 (3) SCC 537] to emphasis the
point that it is only such Customs Officer
who have been assigned the specific
function of assessment and reassessment of
duty in the jurisdictional area where the
import concerned was effected, who are
competent to issue notice under Section 28
of the Act. In the case at hand, the
Respondent No. 2 is not the person who
was assigned the specific function of
assessment and reassessment of duty and as
such, is not the "Proper Officer" having
jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28
of the Act.

Submissions of the Respondents:

10. Per contra, Sri Ashok Singh,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
District Taxes in opposition to the writ
petition submits that in view of the orders
of the Board dated 10.11.2012, 09.06.2015
and 17.10.2018 read with the queries made
by the Principal Chief Commissioner,
CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow dated
31.05.2018 and the order of the Board
dated 28.11.2019, the Respondent No. 4
has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the
impugned show cause notice.

11. Sri Amit Mahajan, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for direct taxes who has
appeared in Writ Tax No. 1096 of 2021
submits that the Notifications above
mentioned have been considered by the
Gujrat High Court in Swati Menthol &
Allied Chem. Ltd. versus Jt. Dir., DRI,
[2014 (304) ELT 21 (Guj.)], and in view of
the judgment of the Gujrat High Court, the
writ petition has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

12. Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-DRI,
in
opposition to the writ petitions, submits
that the DRI Officers and Customs, in view
of the Notification No. 31/1997 (N.T.)
dated 07.07.1997 and Notification No.
15/2002-Customs (N.T.) dated 07.03.2002
(as amended) issued under Section 4 (I) of
the Customs Act, 1962 appointing the
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise
and Service Tax, Kanpur as officer of
Customs, such officers are the "Proper
Officer"s within the meaning of Section 2
(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in such
view of the matter, the DRI Officer are
competent to issue notices for adjudication
under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
He further submits that in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Canon India Private Limited
versus Commissioner of Customs (2021
SCC Online SC 200), the jurisdiction has
been conferred by the statute upon the
officers of DRI which cannot be taken
away either by any law or by any judgment.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pahwa
Chemicals
(P)
Ltd.
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, New
Delhi [2005 (2) Supreme Court Cases
720]. He further submits that the reliance
placed by the counsel for the petitioners
upon the decision in the case of Canon
India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is completely
misplaced as neither the aforementioned
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1673
notifications nor the provisions of Section
28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 have been
considered therein. He goes on to submit
that Sub Section (11) of Section 28 of the
Customs Act, 1962 was inserted by Act No.
14 of 2011 w.e.f. 16.9.2021 which provides
that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any judgment, decree
or order of any Court of Law, Tribunal or
other Authority, all persons appointed as
officers of Customs under sub-Section (1)
of Section 4 before the 6th day of July,
2011 shall be deemed to have and always
had the power of assessment under Section
17 and shall be the power of assessment
under Section 17 and shall be deemed to
have been and always had been proper
officers for the purpose of Section 28. He
thus submits that the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner are
without substance and contrary to the
relevant provisions and notifications and as
such do not merit consideration and the
writ petitions warrant outright dismissal.

Discussion and Findings:

13. We have carefully considered the
rival contentions of learned counsel for the
respective parties and have perused the
record. The short questions that call for
consideration in these bunch of writ
petitioners are firstly, as to whether in the
facts of the case, the impugned show cause
notice issued by the Respondent No.2 is
valid in law and the Respondent No.2 is
possessed of the jurisdiction to issue the
same and secondly, as to whether the
Respondent No.4 has the jurisdiction to
adjudicate the show cause notice issued by
the respondent No.2.

14. In order to answer the questions
aforesaid, it would be apt to consider
certain provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
and refer to circulars and Notifications
issued by the CBE & C. Section 2(34) of
the Customs Act, 1962 defines the term
"Proper Officer" as under:-

"2(34)
"proper
officer",
in
relation to any functions to be performed
under this Act, means the officer of customs
who is assigned those functions by the
Board or the [Principal Commissioner of
Customs or Commissioner of Customs]"

15. The term "Proper Officer" is used
at various places under the Act, under
Section 17 it is "Proper Officer" who can
verify the self-assessment of goods and
examine or test any imported goods or
exported goods as may be necessary.
Likewise under Section 18 it is the "Proper
Officer" who may undertake the exercise of
provisional assessment and direct the
importer to pay difference in duty or
furnish
security
as
deemed
fit
for
provisional release of the goods. Section 28
of the Customs Act pertains to recovery of
duties not levied or short-levied or
erroneously refunded and provides for a
complete mechanism for recovery of duties
not levied or short-levied or erroneously
refunded or any interest has been paid, part
paid or erroneously refunded in which case
"Proper Officer" shall serve a notice on the
person chargeable with the duty or interest
requiring to show cause why he should not
pay the amount specified in the notice. The
period of limitation prescribed for issuance
of the notice is one year in normal cases
and extended period in cases of collusion,
willful misstatement or suppression of facts
is five years.

16. As noticed herein above, that
under Section 2(34) of Customs Act, 1962
a "Proper Officer" is defined as a person in
relation to any function to be performed
1674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Act to mean the Officer of
Customs who is assigned those functions
by the Board or Commissioner of Customs.
Thus, the "Proper Officer" is a person, who
has been assigned functions by the Board
or the Commissioner of Customs in relation
to such functions to be performed under the
Act.

17. The Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali,
reported in 2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC) has
held that it is only the officers of Customs,
who
are
assigned
the
functions
of
assessment working under the jurisdiction
of Collectorate/Commissionerate within
whose jurisdiction Bills of entry or baggage
declaration had been made and the
consignment having been cleared will have
jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28
of the Act. In the said case, the assessee
who was engaged in the business of carpet
manufacturing and export was charged with
the misuse of the Export Pass Book
Scheme by selling goods cleared duty free
in the open market or selling the pass book
in premium in violation of the restrictions
imposed on such sale. Investigation was
conducted by the Marine and Preventive
Wing of Customs and the Assistant
Collector
of
Customs
(Preventive),
Mumbai, issued show cause notice alleging
violations of the provisions of Section
111(d) of the Customs Act. At an appellate
stage, the Collector (Appeals) though set
aside the order passed by the Assistant
Collector, granted liberty to the Department
to re-adjudicate the case after issuing
proper show cause notice. Fresh notice was
issued under Section 28 (1) of the Customs
Act
by
the
Collector
of
Customs
(Preventive) which was questioned on the
ground of jurisdiction of the Collector of
Customs (Preventive) to proceed in the
matter. It was in this background that the
Apex Court rendered its decision holding
that only such Custom Officers who have
been assigned the specific functions of
assessment and reassessment of duty either
by the board or the Commissioner of the
Customs in terms of Section 2(34) in the
jurisdiction at area where the import
concerned has been affected, who is
competent to issue notice under Section 28
of the Act.

18. Perhaps since the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sayed Ali (Supra) would upset large
number of pending and even concluded
proceedings, the Legislature in its wisdom
introduced sub-Section (11) of Section 28,
which provides as under:-

"(11) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any judgment,
decree or order of any Court of law,
Tribunal or other authority, all persons
appointed as officers of Customs under
sub-section (1) of section 4 before the sixth
day of July, 2011 shall be deemed to have
and always had the power of assessment
u/s 17 and shall be deemed to have been
and always had been the proper officers for
the purposes of this section."

19. The Board in its Circular dated
23.09.2011, in connection with the newly
added sub-Section (11) of Section 28,
clarified as under:-

" *** **** ***

2. Further, as a prospective
remedial measure, in terms of Section 2(34)
of the Act, 1962, the Board issued
Notification No. 44/2011-Customs (N.T.)
dated
6-7-2011.
By
virtue
of
this
notification, officers of Directorate General
of
Revenue
Intelligence
(DRI),
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1675
Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive),
Directorate General of Central Excise
Intelligence (DGCEI) and Central Excise
Commissionerates
were
assigned
the
functions of the 'proper officer' for the
purposes of Sections 17 and 28 of the said
Act.

*** **** ***

4.
Accordingly,
as
per
the
amended Section 28 of the Customs Act,
1962, show cause notices issued prior to 67-2011 by officers of Customs, which would
include officers of Commissionerates of
Customs (Preventive), Directorate General
of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate
General of Central Excise Intelligence and
similarly placed officers stand validated
since these officers are retrospectively
recognized as 'proper officers' for the
purpose of Sections 17 and 28 of the said
Act.

*** **** ***

*** **** ***

5. In this regard it may also be
noted that in terms of Notification No.
44/2011-Customs (N.T.) , dated 6-7-2011
the officers of DRI and DGCEI are 'proper
officers' for the purposes of Section 28.
However, it is hereby directed by the Board
that these officers shall not exercise
authority in terms of clause (8) of Section
28 of the said Act. In other words, there
shall be no change in the present practice
and officers of DRI and DGCEI shall not
adjudicate the show cause notices issued
u/s 28 of the said Act."

20. A perusal of the aforesaid
notification dated 23.09.2011 issued by
the Board would show that sub-Section
(11)
would
operate
notwithstanding
anything contrary to the judgment, decree
or order of any Court and all persons
appointed as officers of the Customs
under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before
the 6th Day of July, 2011 would be
deemed to have always had the power of
assessment under Section 17 and should
be
deemed
and
always
should
be
considered as proper officers for the
purpose of the said section.

21. In the context of the inquiry,
whether the Respondent No.2 can be
stated to be an "Proper Officer", we may
refer to the different notifications of the
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
which have been placed before us for
consideration.

22. Notification dated 07.07.1997
provided as under:-

"...... In exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4
of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962)
and in supersession of the notification of
the Government of India in the Ministry
of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.
38/63-Customs, dated 1st February, 1963
the Central Government hereby appoints
the following persons to be the Officers of
Customs, namely:-

1.
Appraisers,
Examiners,
Superintendent
Customs
(Preventive),
Preventive Officers, Women Searchers,
Ministerial Officers and Class IV Officers
in the Customs Department in any place
in India.

2. Superintendents, Inspectors,
Women Searchers, Ministerial staff and
Class
IV
staff
of
Central
Excise
Department, who are for the time being
posted to a Customs port, Customs airport,
1676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Land-Customs
station,
Coastal
port,
Customs
preventive
post,
Customs
Intelligence post or a Customs warehouse.

3.
Superintendents,
and
Inspectors of Central Excise Department in
any place in India.

4. All Officers of the Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence.

5. All Officers of the Narcotics
Control Bureau.

6. All Intelligence Officers of the
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.

23.

Under
Notification
dated
07.03.2002, the Government of India
appointed officers mentioned in Column
No. 2 of the table, notification dated
07.03.2002 provided as under:-

"S.O. (E). - In exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (34) of
Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
1962), the Central Board of Excise and
Customs hereby assigns the functions of the
proper officer to the following officers
mentioned in column (2) of the Table below,
for the purposes of Section 17 and Section
28 of the said Act, namely:-"

Sr.
No.
Designation of the Officers
1.
Additional
Director
Generals,
Additional
Directors
or
Joint
Directors,
Deputy
Directors
or
Assistant
Directors
in
the
Directorate General of Revenue
Intelligence.
2.
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive),
Additional
Commissioners
or
Joint
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive),
Deputy
Commissioners
or
Assistant
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive).
3.
Additional
Director
Generals,
Additional
Directors
or
Joint
Directors,
Deputy
Directors
or
Assistant
Directors
in
the
Directorate
General
of
Central
Excise Intelligence.
4.
Commissioners of Central Excise,
Additional Commissioners or Joint
Commissioners or Central Excise,
Deputy Commissioners or Assistant
Commissioners of Central Excise.

[F. No.437/143/2009-Cus.IV]

(Vikas)

Under Secretary to the
Government of India"

24. Notification dated 06.07.2011
provides as under:-

"S.O. (E) - In exercise of powers
conferred by sub-section (34) of Section 2
of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the
Central Board of Excise and Customs
hereby assigns the functions of the proper
officer to the following officers mentioned
in column (2) of the Table below, for the
purposes of Section 17 and Section 28 of
the said Act, namely:-

Sl. No.

Designation of the officers
1.
Additional
Director
Generals,
Additional
Directors
or
Joint
Directors, Deputy Directors or
Assistant
Directors
in
the
Directorate General of Revenue
Intelligence
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1677
2.
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive),
Additional
Commissioners
or
Joint
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive),
Deputy
Commissioners
or
Assistant
Commissioners
of
Customs
(Preventive).
3.
Additional
Director
Generals,
Additional
Directors
or
Joint
Directors, Deputy Directors or
Assistant
Directors
in
the
Directorate General of Central
Excise Intelligence
4.
Commissioners of Central Excise,
Additional Commissioners or Joint
Commissioners or Central Excise,
Deputy Commissioners or Assistant
Commissioners of Central Excise.

[F. No.437/143/2009-Cus.IV]

(Vikas)

Under
Secretary
to
the
Government of India"

25. Under the Notification dated
02.05.2012 the Central Board of Excise and
Customs
assigned
various
officers
mentioned in Column No. 2 of the Table
corresponding
functions
mentioned
in
column No. 3 thereof. Relevant portion of
the Table reads as under:-

Sl. No. Designation of
the officers
Functions under
Section
of
the
Customs
Act,
1962
***
***

4.
Deputy
Director
or
Assistant
Director in the
(i) Section 28B;
and
(ii) Section 72
Directorate
General
of
Revenue
Intelligence
and
Directorate
General
of
Central Excise
Intelligence
***
***

6.
Intelligence
Officer in the
Directorate
General
of
Revenue
Intelligence
and
Directorate
General
of
Central Excise
Intelligence
(i) Section 37;
(ii) Section 100;
(iii) Section 103;
(iv) Section 106;
(v) Section 106A;
(vi) Sub-sections
(1) and (3) of
Section
110;
(viii) Section 144;
and
(ix) Section 145
***
***

26. A perusal of the notification dated
02.05.2012, however, reveals that officers
of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(DRI) have not been assigned specific
function of adjudication under Section 28
of the Customs Act.

27. The question, however, as to
whether by virtue of the notifications dated
07.07.1997, 07.03.2002 and 06.07.2011,
the DRI would have the authority to act
under Section 28 of the Customs Act and
whether by virtue of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sayed Ali (Supra) this position would be
altered. It is evident from the notification
dated 07.07.1997 that all officers of the
DRI are appointed as officers of the
Customs under the notification dated
07.03.2002. The officers of the Directorate
1678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Revenue Intelligence have been given
jurisdiction over the whole of India.

28. The Government of India,
Ministry
of
Finance
(Department
of
Revenue) Central Board of Excise and
Customs vide order dated 20.11.2012
issued
in
terms
of
Notification
No.15/2002-Customs
(N.T.)
dated
07.03.2002 (as amended) issued orders as
under:-

F.No.437/17/2011- Cus. IV

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue)

Central Board of Excise & Customs

 New Delhi, dated
the 20th November, 2012.

ORDER

In terms of Notification No. 15/2002Customs (N.T.) dated 07.03.2002 (as
amended) issued under sub-section (1) of
section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
1962), the Board hereby assigns the Show
Cause Notices mentioned in column (2) of
the Table below, issued by the authorities
mentioned in column (3) in the case of
parties mentioned in column (4) to the
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise
and Service Tax, Kanpur for the purpose of
adjudication.

Table
1
2
3
4
S.No Show Cause
Notice No.
and date
Issuing
Authority
Party
Name
1.
DRIF.No./VI
II/DRI/LZU/
Additional
Director
M/s
Allahaba
26/26/2008/
Allahabad/3
3
dated
04.04.2011
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
d Tannery
Kanpur
2.
DRI
F.No/VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Cres
cent
dated
04.04.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Crescent
Tanners
Pvt. Ltd.,
Kanpur
3.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Iqbal
dated.05.04.
2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s Iqbal
Leathers
Limited,
Kanpur
4.
DRI
F.No/VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Mod
el
Exims
dated
06.04.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Model
Exims,
Kanpur
5.
DRI
F.No/VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Allie
d
Leather
dated.07.04.
2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Allied
leather
Finishers
Pvt. Ltd.,
Kanpur
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1679
6.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Seem
a
dated.08.04.
2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/sSeem
a
Exports,
Kanpur
7.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Hom
era
Dt.
11.04.201
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Homera
Tanning
Industries
Pvt. Ltd.,
Kanpur
8.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Supe
r/292-304
Dt.
21.04.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Super
Tannery
Ltd.,
Kanpur
9.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Ever
est
Dt.
26.04.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Everest
Tannery
Pvt. Ltd.
Kanpur
10.
C.No.VIII/H
Q/10/ACE/A
dj./742/11/27
79
Dt.
13.05.2011
(a)
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
(Export)
IGI Airport
New Delhi
M/s Alig
Tannery,
Kanpu

DRI/F.No.VI
II/DRI/LZU/
26/26/2008/
Alig
S/6-BMisc
46
/2011CFS(M)(X)
both
Dt.
09.05.2011
(b)
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
New
Customs
House,
Mumbai.
11.
DRI/F.No.VI
II/DRI/LZU/
26/26/2008/
Penza S/10Misc 6/201112Adj(X)
both
Dated
20.05.2011
Commissio
ner
(Export),
JawaharLa
l
Nehru
Custom
House,
Nhava
Sheva, Tal
Urran,
District
Raigarh,
Maharasht
ra-400707.
M/s
Penza
Leathers,,
Kanpur
12.
C.No.VIII/H
Q/10/ACE/A
dj./754/2011/
4435Dt.01.0
7.2011
F.No.S10/Misc/10/2
01112Adj(X)
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008
Sunrise both
Dt.02.06.201
1
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
(Export),
Air Cargo
Export,
New
Custom
House,
New Delhi.
M/s
Sunrise
Overseas,
Kanpur
F.No.S-6-BMisc65/2011CFS
The
Commissio
ner
of
1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(M)(X)/417
VIII/DRI/LZ
U/26/26/200
8
Sunrise
both
Dt.02.06.201
1
Customs
(Mulund
CFS
&
General),
Mumbai.
13.
F.No.S10/Misc./14/
2011-12 Adj
(X)
VIII/DRI/LZ
U/26/26/200
8/Indian/704
both
Dt.13.06.201
1
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
Export,
JawaharLa
l
Nehru
Custom
House,
Nhava
Sheva, Tal
Ura,
District
Raigarh,
Maharasht
ra-
400707.
M/s
Indian
Tanning
Industries
, Kanpur
14.
F.No.S10/Misc.-
14/1/201112
Adj(X)
VIII/DRI/LZ
U/26/26/200
8/The
Const/779
both
Dt.22.06.201
1
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
(Export),
JawaharLa
l
Nehru
Custom
House,
Nhava
Sheva, Tal
Ura,
District
Raigarh,
Maharasht
ra-
400707.
M/s The
Construct
ion
and
Industries
Ltd.,
c.No.VIII/(6)
/ICD/Cus/K
(b)The
Assistant
NP/
197/
2000
Dt.23.06.201
1
Commissio
ner
(Customs)
ICDChake
ri, Kanpur

15.
F.No.S10/Misc./14/
02/2011-1212
Adj(X)
VIII/DRI/LZ
U/26/26/200
8/Sultan/738
both
Dt.22.06.201
1
The
Commissio
ner
of
Customs
(Export),
JawaharLa
l
Nehru
Custom
House,
Nhava
Sheva, Tal
Ura,
District
Raigarh,
Maharasht
ra-
400707.
M/s
Sultan
Leather
and
Tanneries
Products
Ltd.
16.
DRI.F.No.VI
II/DRI/LZU/
26/26/2008/
KCK/Export
s/1340to135
4
Dt.
26.08.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Hides
Internatio
nal
Limited
Kanpur
(erstwhile
M/s KCK
Exports
Ltd.
Kanpur).
17.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Uppe
r India /1272
to
1283
Dt.11.08.201
1
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Upper
India
Tannery
Pvt.,
Kanpur
5 All. M/s Sultan Tanneries & Leather Products (P) Ltd., Deoria Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1681
18.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Supe
rhouse
Dt.
09.09.2011
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Superhou
se Ltd.,
19.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Penz
a /1259 to
1268
Dt.26.09.201
1
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Penza
Tanning
Ind. Pvt.
Ltd.,
Kanpur
20.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Hafe
ez/
19351940
Dt.09.12.201
1
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Hafeez
Sons
Tannery
Pvt. Ltd.,
Kanpur
21.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Hom
era
Dt.12.01.201
2
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Homera
Tanners
Pvt. Ltd.
Kanpur
22.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Saba
/2252-2257
Dt.22.02.201
2
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
M/s Saba
Exports,
Kanpur
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
23.
DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Tann
ers/ 2727 to
2732
Dt.02.04.201
2
Deputy
Director,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s
Tanners
India,
Kanpur
24. DRI
F.No.VIII/D
RI/LZU/26/2
6/2008/Best/
2278 to 2383
Dt.24/04/20
12
Additional
Director
General,
Directorate
of Revenue
Intelligenc
e, Lucknow
Zonal Unit
- Lucknow.
M/s Best
Tanning
Industries
(P) Ltd.,
Kanpur

(M. V. Vasudevan)

Under
Secretary
to
the
Government of India

 F.No.437/17/2011- Cus. IV

29. Then again the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Central Board of Excise and
Customs vide Circular dated 09.06.2015
regarding
appointment
of
common
adjudicating authority it was directed as
under:-

Circular No. 18/2015- Customs
F.No. 450/145/2014- Cus IV
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise and Customs

New Delhi, Dated: 09.06.2015

To
1682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

All Chief Commissioner of Customs /
Customs (Preventive)

All Chief Commissioners of Customs
and Central Excise

All Commissioners of Customs

All Commissioners of Customs and
Central Excise

Sir / Madam,

Subject: Appointment of common
adjudicating authority -regarding

Reference is invited to Notification No
60/2015-Customs (N.T.), dated 04.06.2015
whereby the power to appoint common
adjudicating authority in cases investigated
by DRI upto the level of Commissioner of
Customs have been delegated to Principal
Director General of Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence in terms of section 152 of the
Customs Act, 1962. This notification was
issued in the interest of expediting decision
making with resultant benefits to both trade
and revenue in terms of faster settlement of
outstanding disputes. These appointments
were done hitherto by the Central Board of
Excise and Customs under sections 4 and 5
of the Customs Act 1962.

2. In the light of the aforementioned
notification, all cases of appointment of
common adjudicating authority in respect
of cases investigated by DRI will be
handled by Principal DG, DRI. In this
regard, the Board has prescribed the
following guidelines for Principal DG,
DRI:

(a) The following cases initiated
by DRI shall be assigned to Additional
Director General (Adjudication), DRI:

(i) Cases involving duty of Rs.5
crores and above;

(ii) Group of cases on identical
issues involving aggregate duty of Rs.5
crores or more;

(iii) Cases involving seizure value
of Rs.5 crores or more;

(iv)
Cases
of
over-valuation
irrespective of value involved; and

(v) Existing DRI cases with
erstwhile Commissioner (Adjudication)

(b) Cases other than at (a) above
involving
more
than
one
Customs
Commissionerate would be assigned to the
jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs on
the basis of the maximum duty evaded;