JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing of the show cause notice bearing number F. No. DRI/MZU/F/Int-40/2017 dated 14.02.2018 read with the Corrigendum / Addendum dated 28.02.2018 (impugned SCN) issued by respondent No. 2/DRI.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is an importer and an exclusive authorised distributor of Swatch products, and distributes various brands of luxury watches, accessories, etc. The watches and accessories are imported by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Country Manager cum Director and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Petitioner No. 1.

3. Respondent No. 2/DRI states that it received credible information that Petitioner No. 1 is importing consignments of branded watches of Swiss origin falling under Customs Tariff item 91021100/ 91021900, from different related overseas suppliers and is resorting to mis-declaration of retail sale prices (“RSP”) to evade payment of appropriate customs duty. It was alleged that watches were notified for retail sale price-based assessment for payment of CVD less abatement.

4. It was alleged that certain authorised retailers of Petitioner No. 2 were changing the MRP. Searches were carried out by the officers of Respondent No. 2 on 17.02.2017 at various premises of Petitioner No. 1 and also at the premises of various retailers.

5. Certain watches valued at ₹5,68,87,800/-were detained during the search on 17.02.2017. During the pendency of the investigation, the said watches were seized vide Seizure Memo dated 06.06.2017. Watches worth ₹ 39,47,18,823/- detained from the premises of seven retailers of petitioner No. 1 were also seized vide Seizure Memo dated

31.05.2017, 06.06.2017, 07.06.2017, and 29.06.2017.

6. The investigation culminated in the issuance of the impugned show cause notice dated 14.02.2018 and corrigendum dated

28.02.2018 under Sections 28 & 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Customs Act’), proposing recovery of custom duty of ₹38,94,832/- along with interest and penalty, confiscation of the seized watches in terms of Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. A penalty was also proposed under Section 112(a), 112(b), and Section 114AA of the Customs Act on the officials of petitioner No. 1.

7. It is an admitted that the show cause notice was not adjudicated till the date of the filing of the present writ petition on 15.04.2021. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notice on essentially two counts:

(i) The respondent No. 2 is not a proper officer appointed under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act for the assessment and re- assessment of goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence, the show cause notice has been issued without any jurisdiction in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 200.

(ii) The show cause notice was issued in the month of February

2018, and in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, the same having not been adjudicated within a period of 12 months, any adjudication now was time-barred.

8. The contesting respondents have filed their replies. It is not denied that in the present case, the impugned SCN was issued by the DRI and, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canon India Private Ltd. (supra), such notices would be without jurisdiction. It is submitted that after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canon India Private Ltd. (supra), the adjudication of the impugned SCN is kept in abeyance in terms of the CBIC instructions dated 17.03.2021. The respondents further submitted that a review petition has already been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, vide its order dated 15.02.2022, permitted oral hearing of the said review petitions.

9. Mr. Harpreet Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondent su