Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter II — Officers of Customs

Section 5. Powers of officers of customs

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Powers of officers of customs. —

(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under this Act.

(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, by notification, assign such functions as it may deem fit, to an officer of customs, who shall be the proper officer in relation to such functions.

(1B) Within their jurisdiction assigned by the Board, the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may, by order, assign such functions, as he may deem fit, to an officer of customs, who shall be the proper officer in relation to such functions.

(2) An officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under this Act on any other officer of customs who is subordinate to him.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, a Commissioner (Appeals) shall not exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on an officer of customs other than those specified in Chapter XV, section 108 and sub-section (1D) of section 110.

(4) In specifying the conditions and limitations referred to in sub-section (1), and in assigning functions under sub-section (1A), the Board may consider any one or more of the following criteria, including, but not limited to––

(a) territorial jurisdiction;

(b) persons or class of persons;

(d) cases or class of cases;

(e) computer assigned random assignment;

(f) any other criterion as the Board may, by notification, specify.

(5) The Board may, by notification, wherever necessary or appropriate, require two or more officers of customs (whether or not of the same class) to have concurrent powers and functions to be performed under this Act.

Judgments on Section 5

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…
Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Private Limited (Review Petition No. 400 of 2021) — Supreme Court of India, 7 Nov 2024. DRI officers assigned functions under section 2(34) are proper officers and may issue show cause notices under section 28.
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,…
M/S Bhagwati Products Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Equity has no place in the interpretation of a fiscal statute — 'there is no room for any intendment... there is no equity about a tax...
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…