IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10663 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15887 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15885 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15796 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15655 of 2021 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15536 of 2021 =============================================

GEOCHEM MIDDLE EAST & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MR HARDIK P MODH, MR DK TRIVEDI, PYDIVYESHVAR, ADVOCATES for the Petitioners MS HETVI H. SANCHETI, MR UTKARSH R. SHARMA, PRIYANK LODHA, MS HETAL G. PATEL, ADVOCATES for the respective RESPONDENTS =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 12/11/2025 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13997 of 2023 along with Special Civil Application No.14027 of 2023, more particularly in paragraph No.3 thereof. 2. In the order dated 12.03.2025, the Coordinate Bench has passed the following order: –

“3. Considering the above submissions, these petitions are disposed of in view of the conclusion arrived at in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) holding that the notice and proceedings initiated by the DRI under the provisions of Customs Act are valid proceedings having jurisdiction as under:-

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

(i) DRI officers came to be appointed as the officers of customs vide Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated 26.04.1990 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.This notification later came to be superseded by Notification No. 17/2002 dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to account for administrative changes.

(ii) The petition seeking review of the decision in Canon India (supra) is allowed for the following reasons:

a. Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi which empowered the officers of DRI to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 as well as Notification No. 44/2011 dated 06.07.2011 which assigned the functions of the proper officer for the purposes of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act, 1962 respectively to the officers of DRI were not brought to the notice of this Court during the proceedings in Canon India (supra). In other words, the judgment in Canon India (supra) was rendered without looking into the circular and the notification referred to above thereby seriously affecting the correctness of the same.

b. The decision in Canon India (supra) failed to consider the statutory scheme of Sections 2(34) and 5 of the Act, 1962 respectively. As a result, the decision erroneously recorded the finding that since DRI officers were not entrusted with the functions of a proper officer for the purposes of Section 28 in accordance with Section 6, they did not possess the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for the recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Act, 1962.

c. The reliance placed in Canon India (supra) on the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) is misplaced for two reasons – first, Sayed Ali (supra) dealt with the case of officers of customs (Preventive), who, on the date of the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) were not empowered to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 unlike the officers of DRI; and secondly, the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) took into consideration Section 17 of the Act, 1962 as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2011. However, the assessment orders, in respect of which the show cause notices