$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10369/2022 & CM APPL. 54877/2023 THE FERRY INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Seema Bingani, Ms. AnasZaidi &

Ms. RasneetKaur,Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Kunal Dixit, Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Mr.Nitin Mishra & Mr. JeetChakrabordy, Advocate for R-1, R-4 & R-5 Mr. Satish Kumar, SeniorStanding Counsel for R-6 & R-7 CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 04.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present Petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging various summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter “DRI”) Officials dated 15^th November, 2021, 13^th January, 2022 and 7^th June, 2022. Certain other reliefs in respect of the classification of the handicraft articles made of stone and marbles have also been raised.

3. The impugned summons were issued by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the primary contention that the Petitioner raised in this writ petition was in respect of the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as ‘proper officers’ to conduct proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (18) SCC 563 (hereinafter ‘Canon-I’), which had held that DRI Officials were not ‘proper officers’ for the purpose of Customs Act, 1962.

4. However, the decision in Canon-I has been reviewed in Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 titled 'Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited’, (hereinafter, ‘Canon-II’), wherein, the Supreme Court has held as under:

““168.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: [...]

(vi) Subject to the observations made in this judgment, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder. Therefore, any challenge made to the maintainability of such show cause notices issued by this particular class of officers, on the ground of want of jurisdiction for not being the proper officer, which remain pending before various forums, shall now be dealt with in the following manner:

a. Where the show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 have been challenged before the High Courts directly by way of a writ petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of such writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28.

b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28.

c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT.

e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the r