Section 4. Appointment of officers of customs

Judgments on Section 4

• Manasa Impex Services vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise, Coimbatore) With — CESTAT, 21 Aug 2025. A customs broker's failure to perform duties under CHALR attracts disciplinary action under CHALR alone; a penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act requires proof of abetment or active collusion — involvement beyond…
• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 1 Apr 2022. A show cause notice for recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act can be issued only by the 'proper officer', and notices issued by the DRI are without authority and liable to be quashed per M/s Canon India,…
• Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd & vs Joint Director - Directorate Of Revenue… — Gujarat High Court, 8 Jan 2014. A DRI officer to whom a notification (such as that dated 6.7.2011) specifically assigns functions under sections 17 and 28 for the purposes of section 2(34) is a 'proper officer' competent to issue a show cause notice…
• Raja Metal Corporation vs Chennai (Port Export) — CESTAT, 30 Sep 2025. Since the Customs Act, 1962 contains no machinery provision for proceeding against a deceased assessee's legal representatives, a demand of duty, interest or penalty cannot be pursued and the appeal abates under Rule 22…
• Royal Industries Ltd vs C. Ludhiana — CESTAT, 30 Jun 2025. An adjudication order that relies on evidence not relied upon in the show cause notice and ignores the assessee's uncontradverted evidence, including re-warehousing certificates, while denying effective…
• The Commissioner Of Customs vs The Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Nov 2022. Where goods are imported at a concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods, the Central Excise officer is competent under Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules to verify end-use and recover the duty differential with…
• M/S Sultan Tanneries And Leather Products vs Union Of India And 3 Othes — Allahabad High Court, 7 Apr 2022. An officer appointed by the Board as common adjudicating authority remains a 'proper officer'/officer of Customs competent to adjudicate the show cause notice assigned to him, and there is no right to cross-examine…
• Rare Crafts Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai — CESTAT, 12 Aug 2010. A let export order under Section 51 does not oust the jurisdiction of Customs at the gateway/exit port to seize the goods and initiate confiscation proceedings, since confiscation is an action in rem that depends on the…
• Adani Enterprises Limited And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 17 Oct 2019. A Letter of Rogatory under Section 166-A Cr.P.C. can be issued only in aid of an investigation validly commenced under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.; where the alleged customs offence is non-cognizable under Section 104(5)…
• Bijan Halder And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. — Calcutta High Court, 14 May 1993. Since offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable (Section 104(4)) and customs officers act under independent statutory powers rather than as police investigating officers, Section 167, Cr.P.C.