Case Law Details
Vijay Baid @ Vicky Vs Union of India (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The whole proceeding of search and seizure on the Petitioner’s premises was conducted on an incident that took place on 1.5.2021 whereby 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 Petitioner being released on bail, the Respondent Authorities have been issuing summons after summons to appear before the Respondents and insisting his presence for interrogation and for further proceeding in the matter. It is this seizure and summoning proceeding initiated by the Respondents which has been questioned by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition.
Petitioner has sought for the quashment of the seizure proceeding drawn by the Respondents and also sought for an order of restrain against the Respondents from further calling upon the Petitioner for investigation and enquiry.
Primary contention put forth by learned Counsel for Petitioner assailing the impugned seizure proceeding is that, the Respondents i.e. the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short, “DRI”), are not authorized for initiating proceeding against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, under the provisions of the Customs Act, it is only the Officers of the Customs Department and who are specifically otherwise notified by the Central Govt. for discharging the functions of the Board or any Officers of the Customs Department who could initiate the proceedings under the Customs Act. Learned Counsel for Petitioner predominantly relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [AIR 2021 SC 1699] in support of their contentions. Learned Counsel for Petitioner has also referred to some other Judgments in this regard.
Further contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that under the provisions of the Customs Act, it is the Officer under the said Act who can initiate proceeding which in the instant case has not been followed. Moreover, the DRI has also not been otherwise entrusted as is required under Section 6 of the Customs Act to discharge the duties and functions of the Board or any Officer of the Customs. According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, in the absence of any entrustment being made by the DRI as is required under Section 6 of the Customs Act, the entire proceeding initiated stands vitiated and the entire proceeding needs to be quashed and interfered with by this Court. Learned Counsel also referred to the definition of “proper officer” as is defined under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act and submitted that the DRI has not been declared to be the “proper officer” for initiating a proceeding under the Customs Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
