The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Idea Cellular Ltd., challenging the jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's review decision in the Canon India case, validating DRI officers' authority under retrospective amendments and ensuring that such show cause notices are legally binding.

1. Background of the Petition

• The petitioner, Idea Cellular Ltd., challenged the Order-in-Original dated October 5, 2017, issued after a show cause notice dated December 18, 2014, contending that DRI officers lack jurisdiction to issue such notices.

2. Reference to the Canon India Case

• The petitioner heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which initially held that DRI officers were not proper officers under Section 28.

3. Supreme Court's Review Decision

• The review petition filed by the revenue in Canon India case was allowed by the Supreme Court on November 7, 2024. It clarified that the judgment did not consider certain relevant notifications and statutory provisions.
• The Supreme Court validated the appointment of DRI officers as proper officers retrospectively through Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022.

4. Bombay High Court's Observations

• The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reviewed decision and dismissed the petitioner's claims about the jurisdiction of DRI officers.
• It directed the petitioner to pursue their appeal against the Order-in-Original before the appropriate appellate authority.

5. Challenge to Note 3 in Notification No. 125/2010/Cus

• The petitioner’s challenge to Note 3 of Notification No. 125/2010 was not adjudicated in this judgment. Liberty was granted to raise the issue in appropriate proceedings if necessary.

6. Procedural Directions

• The Court clarified that contentions not concluded by the Supreme Court remain open for consideration by appellate authorities.
• Interim orders were vacated, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Customs Act, 1962:

   • Section 2(34): Defines “proper officer.”
   • Section 28: Governs the issuance of show cause notices for duty recovery.
   • Section 97 (Finance Act, 2022): Retrospective validation of actions by DRI officers.

2. Finance Act, 2022:

   • Retrospectively empowered DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28.

3. Relevant Notifications:

   • Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated April 26, 1990.
   • Notification No. 17/2002 dated March 7, 2002.
   • Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated February 15, 1999.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court upheld that DRI officers are competent proper officers for the purposes of Section 28, aligning with retrospective legislative amendments and Supreme Court's validation in the review petition. This ensures clarity in adjudicative jurisdiction while limiting procedural challenges on this ground.

Subjects:

Customs Law—Jurisdiction of Proper Officers under the Customs Act.

DRI, Customs Act, Proper Officer, Canon India, Show Cause Notice, Retrospective Validation.