The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the power of the DRI Officer of seizure of gold and silver articles citing Cannon Judgement.
The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad has observed that Principal Additional Director General and Deputy Director of DRI, who are customs officers, and thus empowered to dispense the functions in relation to Section 110(2) and Section 105 of the Act. Hence, there was no infirmity in the present case in extension of issuance of notice by the period of further six months and initiation of the search proceedings by DRI. Further the seizure in the instant case has been made by a Customs officer who is undisputedly the proper officer even if the ratio of Canon India judgment is applied.
The assessee is the Proprietor of a Jewelry Shop namely “Jewelers Jasraj Shantilal Baid”. The office and the residential premises of the Petitioner were searched by Appellant No.2 on 1.5.2021 and 2.5.2021. In the process of search, the Appellant No.2 recovered 4652.235 gram of gold bar and cuttings. Similarly, they also seized 4563.446 gram of fine silver and 407.907 gram of silver ingots.
The writ petitioner was arrested on 4.5.2021 and he was sent to judicial custody for a period of 60 days by the Trial Court. Thereafter, he was released on bail by the Trial Court.
The whole proceeding of search and seizure on the writ petitioner’s premises was conducted on an incident that took place on 1.5.2021 by which two persons namely Jijoba Shankar Kadam and Ranjit Phate were intercepted at the Raipur Railway Station and from their possession a huge quantity of Silver and Gold were recovered.
Subsequent to the writ petitioner being released on bail, the appellant authorities had been issuing summons after summons to appear before them and insisting his presence for interrogation and for further proceeded in the matter.
It was this seizure and summoning proceeding initiated by the appellant which was questioned by the writ petitioner in the writ petition before the Single Judge.
The Single Judge, after hearing the parties allowed writ petition and quashed the notice/summons issued to the writ petitioner by the appellants including the seizure and panchmana with consequential reliefs, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.
The department contended that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the seizure of goods was affected by the officer authorized for the purpose under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, was a working officer of Customs Department at Raipur and thus there was no basis to apply the ratio of the judgment in Canon India case. The Single Judge did not appreciate that there was no infirmity in extension of time for issuance of notice as granted by the Additional Director General of DRI as well as in the investigation being conducted by the DRI, as the same had not been the subject matter in the judgment in Canon India case.
The department contended that DRI officers are customs officers, and DRI itself is not a separate department but is a Directorate functioning under the administrative control of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (erstwhile Central Board of Excise and Customs). DRI officers have always been appointed as the officers of Customs under section 4(1) of the Act. This has been done through a series of Notifications issued by the Central Government (till 11.05.2002, and by the Board afterward) right from 01.02.1963 to 16.09.2014.
The court held that the Principal Additional Director General and Deputy Director of DRI, who are customs officers, are empowered to dispense the functions in relation to Section 110(2) and Section 105 of the Act. Hence, there was no infirmity in the present case in extension of issuance of notice by the period of further six months and initiation of the search proceedings by DRI.
The court held that the order of the Single Judge is based on the decision of the Apex Court in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. and the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. has been reviewed by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs.
The court deemed it appropriate to set aside the order of the Single Judge in light of the judgment of the Apex Court. The appeal stands allowed.
Read More: BREAKING | Supreme Court To Deliver Judgement On Customs Dept’s Review Petition In Cannon Case
Case Details
Case Title: Deputy Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Government Of India Indore Zonal Unit Versus Vijay Baid
Case No.: WA No. 211 of 2022
Date: 25/11/2024
Counsel For Appellant: Bhavesh Acharya
Counsel For Respondent: Amit Nayak
