JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-original No.43/2014 dated 28.08.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-original No.43/2014 dated 28.08.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-original No.43/2014 dated 28.08.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.)

1. Since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P(MD)Nos.4033 and 4034 of 2018 namely Taher Impex Pvt. Limited, in short we call as 'Taher Impex' imported certain polyester items and in respect of the same, he used the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (hereinafter call it in short as 'DFRC') for paying the import duty.

3. In this context, according to the respondent Customs, the petitioner in W.P (MD) No. 4032 of 2018 i.e. Deepak Gopaldas Bajaj acted as broker and both have wrongly used the DFRC at the time of import of different goods as the original DFRC was given for cotton goods to the original exporter and therefore, in this regard the respondent Customs issued a Show Cause Notice on 17.03.2009 under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (In short ''the Act'').

4. In response to the same, the petitioners had submitted their reply and after adjudication, a common adjudication order in these cases against the petitioners were passed by the respondent Customs on 28.08.2014. Challenging the same and the consequential order of detention notice in one case, these Writ Petitions were filed for the respective prayers.

5. Though these Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2018, at that time various grounds were raised on behalf of the petitioners, when these Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing, Mr.G.Derrick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, among various grounds, has projected the prime ground i.e. want of jurisdiction.

6. The reason being for raising the ground of want of jurisdiction is that, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, it has been specifically mentioned that only a proper officer shall initiate proceedings to issue Show Cause Notice and to complete the proceedings by way of adjudication. The proper officer should have been nominated or appointed for the specific purpose by the Central Government. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials are not the proper officers as they have not been specifically appointed, as such within the meaning of Section 6 of the Customs Act.

7. In this context, it is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the issue as to whether the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence can be treated as a proper officer for the purpose of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act to initiate the proceedings and conclude the same, there has been a direct decision whereby the law has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 09.03.2021 made in Canon India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs.

8. Heavily relying upon the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, since the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials are not automatically treated as proper officers within the meaning of Section 28 of the Customs Act, it was held that, in the said decision, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials cannot