SHRI AJAY SAINI vs INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DRI HEADQUARTERS & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~95&96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 08th April, 2025 + W.P.(C) 4121/2022 & CM APPL. 12286/2022 SHRI AJAY SAINI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv, (M:9810026768) versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DRI HEADQUARTERS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Gagan Vaswani, Adv. for DRI. 96 AND + W.P.(C) 4453/2022 & CM APPL. 13290/2022 ANIL SAINI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv. versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI (HEADQUARTERS) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Gagan Vaswani, Adv. for DRI. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the Seizure Memo dated 25th August, 2018 has been issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter ‘DRI’), which has been challenged. Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 4121/2022 & W.P.(C) 4453/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:11.04.2025 14:38:50 3. The primary contention that the Petitioner raises in this writ petition is in respect of the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as ‘proper officers’ to conduct proceedings under 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 Canon-I decision has been reviewed in Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 titled 'Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited’, (hereinafter, ‘Canon