IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.83417 OF 2013 (T-TAR)

BETWEEN:

DHRUVDESH METASTEEL PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT AT: NO. 150-156, HIREBAGANAL VILLAGE, GINIGERA POST-583 228, KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY.

Digitaly s M ig A n N e J d A b N y NA E Location:

HIGH COURT M E ANJANNAO K D A H F R A N R A W T A A D KA 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL B D 20 E a 2 t N e 6 C : .0 H

2.11 OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, 14:40:02 +0530 NO. 503, RAJARAJESHWARI KRUPA, 3^RD A MAIN ROAD, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADAI, BANGALORE-560 043.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE-575 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N.RAJENDRA, CGSC FOR R1;

SRI. GIRISH S.HULMANI, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO POWER, JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE A NEW FORMULA CONTRARY TO SECTION 25 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT AND TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER FROM ENJOYING THE CONCESSIONAL RATE OF DUTY IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.12/2012 DATED 17/03/2012 (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND SUCH OTHER RELEIFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the show-cause notice dated 09.05.2013 issued by the second respondent-Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, principally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and generation of power, importing steam coal as raw material including those High Sea Sale transactions. For the relevant period, the petitioner cleared imported steam coal by availing concessional customs duty under Notification No.12/2012- Customs dated 17.03.2012, issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted an investigation and, thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2013 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The show cause notice proposed reclassification of the imported coal, denial of confessional rate of duty, demand of differential duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, by applying a calorific value/formula not expressly provided in the exception notification. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notice and contenting that the exemption under Section 25 could not be curtailed by introducing a new formula not contemplated by the notification.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 28 of the Act is not a proper officer as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act and the notification issued and hence the impugned show cause notice is unsustainable and without jurisdiction. He also submits that respondent No.2 issues a show-cause notice and directs the petitioner to appear before respondent No.3-Commissioner of customs for adjudication to submit his explanation, which according to the petitioner is totally contrary to Section 28 of the Act.

5. Sri Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits and places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Canon India (P) Ltd., 2025 (4) SCC 509 (“Canon India” for short) and contends that the Additional Director General has been notified as a proper officer as defined under Section

2(34) of the Act as per the decision of the Apex Court in Canon India and in view of the not