JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by the assessee challenging the show-cause notice dated 18.12.2009 issued by the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone Unit, New Delhi asking the petitioner why the assessable amount of Rs. 11,87,710/- in respect of goods imported by the assessee should not be rejected and the goods should not be confiscated with further levy of customs duty with interest and penalties. The show-cause notice has been challenged by the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the Director of Revenue Intelligence do not have jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice and secondly, that the show-cause notice proceedings have lingered on for unduly long time and therefore any further continuation is opposed to the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the documents and pleadings on record and pointed out that the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Revenue Intelligence is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (AIR 2021 SC 1699). He submitted that this decision of Supreme Court has been followed by several High Courts and show-cause notices issued by the DRI authorities have been set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited (2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.)) which has been followed by different other High Courts in which on the ground of gross delay in disposal of the proceedings which was unexplained, the proceedings were quashed.

3. With respect to the delay in concluding the show-cause notice, our attention was drawn to the chronological events as per which the show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2009. Personal hearing was held for the first time thereafter on 26.02.2013. Without any further development, the show-cause notice was transferred to Call Book (an expression used in the customs department to keep a certain proceeding dormant on account of specific reasons) on 26.08.2016. It was recalled from the Call Book shortly thereafter on 03.01.2017. Personal hearings were conducted on 28.02.2017 and 25.05.2017. Again it was sent to the Call Book on 13.12.2017 and reactivated on 08.11.2019. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Court and took up the question of delay in disposal of the proceedings.

4. The reply of the respondents is that the department has filed a review petition in the case of Canon India Private Limited (supra), which is pending. With respect to the delay in disposal of the proceedings it was argued that the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act and in particular Sub-section (4) thereof as it prevailed at the relevant time, did not provide a rigid period of limitation for disposal of show-cause notice proceedings. All that was stated was that as far as possible, the same should be disposed of within a specified time. Learned counsel for the department pointed out that the petitioner itself had, on numerous occasions requested the department to keep the matter in the Call Book Register since the SLP filed by the department against the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Mangli Impex Limited Versus Union of India was pending. He therefore argued that the petitioner cannot take shelter of the delay particularly on the ground that the matter was kept in the Call Book.

5. In the present case, the question of lack of jurisdiction of the DRI authorities issuing the impugned show-cause notice is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited (supra). In the said case, this issue came up for consideration and was decided in following manner:

"18. The next step is to see whether an Additional Director General of the DRI who has be