High Court Revives DRI Customs Proceedings After Canon India Review; Dismisses Writs:

High Court Revives DRI Customs Proceedings After Canon India Review; Dismisses Writs The petitioner, Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater, filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging Show Cause Notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in April and September 2019 and the corresponding Orders-in-Original passed in September 2020 under the Customs Act, 1962. The principal ground raised was that, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd., DRI officers were not “proper officers” and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Supreme Court decided the review petition in Commissioner of Customs v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., reversing the earlier position. An additional plea was raised by the petitioner alleging non-service of the Show Cause Notices, which was contested by the Department through a detailed affidavit demonstrating dispatch, knowledge, and participation by the petitioner and co-noticees. Main Issue: Whether writ petitions challenging DRI-issued Show Cause Notices and Orders-in-Original based on Canon India survived after the Supreme Court’s review decision recognising DRI officers as “proper officers”, and whether the plea of non-service of notices was sustainable. HC's Ruling: The Delhi High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the challenge based on the original Canon India judgment no longer survived in view of the Supreme Court’s review decision, which conclusively held that DRI officers are proper officers competent to issue Show Cause Notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Court also rejected the plea of non-service of notices, observing that departmental records, emails, acknowledgements, appearances for hearings, and requests for relied-upon documents clearly established service and knowledge of the SCNs. The Court found the plea of non-service to be false and an afterthought. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and left all remedies against the Orders-in-Original open to the petitioner and clarified that the petitioner could seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period during which the writ petitions remained pending. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below