The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking direction to adjudication of the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) by the Commissioner of Customs expediently issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court observed that the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Customs does not prevent the lower ranked officers from issuing or adjudicating the SCN.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested at the airport, with the arrest being approved by an officer of the rank of Commissioner of Customs. This arrest was later challenged through a writ petition. Additionally, the petitioner applied for the provisional release of the seized articles and approached both the Settlement Commission and the Supreme Court, where the Commissioner of Customs was made a party.
The petitioner argued that since the Commissioner of Customs has filed an affidavit detailing both legal and factual aspects of the case, any officer below the rank of Commissioner of Customs would be biassed and unable to impartially adjudicate the Show Cause Notice dated March 31, 2023.
The counsel further noted that an application for the provisional release of the seized goods, filed under Section 110A of the Customs Act, is pending before an officer at the rank of Commissioner of Customs. Communications were sent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs on December 8 and 18, 2023, requesting that an officer not below the rank of Commissioner of Customs adjudicate the Show Cause Notice.
However, the court does not accept the petitioner’s contention. The Show Cause Notice dated March 31, 2023, was issued by an Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), whose power and competence to adjudicate the notice are not disputed by the petitioner. The only argument is that the case’s peculiarity warrants adjudication by an officer of higher rank.
The court found that the facts presented by the petitioner, such as the arrest at the airport authorized by the Commissioner of Customs and the affidavit filed in earlier litigation, do not constitute peculiar circumstances warranting a transfer of jurisdiction.
Section 104 of the Customs Act empowers the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to arrest individuals believed to have committed certain offences. Petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 132 and 135 and the arrest of the petitioner was done under the order of Commissioner of Customs.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs, in a notification dated June 19, 2015, clarified that a Commissioner of Customs should file affidavits and represent customs authorities in court proceedings.
The bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the mere fact that the Commissioner of Customs filed an affidavit does not strip an officer, otherwise empowered under the Act and relevant rules, of the authority to issue and adjudicate a Show Cause Notice. The case of the petitioner is not unique, as there are many similar cases where arrests are made, and proceedings are initiated before and after the issuance of Show Cause Notices.
Thus, the Delhi High Court held that there are no peculiar facts in this case that would prevent an officer below the rank of Commissioner of Customs from adjudicating the Show Cause Notice. Since the competence and authority of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, who issued the Show Cause Notice, are not challenged, the petitioner cannot demand that the Commissioner of Customs adjudicate the notice.
As a result, the court found no merit in the petition and consequently dismissed it.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
