Appointment of officers of customs

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Commr. of Customs vs Sayed Ali

   Supreme Court of India 18 Feb 2011 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty by the Board or Commissioner of Customs. Mere appointment as an officer of Customs with territorial jurisdiction over a port is insufficient to confer proper officer status. Accordingly, a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act for reassessment of goods cleared for home consumption can only be issued by the officer assigned assessment functions in the jurisdictional area where the bill of entry was filed and the goods were cleared, not by any other officer even if he has territorial jurisdiction over that area. In the present case, since the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, was never assigned the specific function of assessment or reassessment of goods entered for home consumption under Section 28, he was not competent to issue the show cause notice, notwithstanding his territorial jurisdiction.

   On this section: Authorizes Board to appoint officers of Customs and confer powers/duties; court held this merely confers appointment and territorial jurisdiction, not assignment of specific statutory functions required under Section 2(34).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Devender Singh vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 10 Mar 2022 Binding (Supreme Court) - Landmark Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution contain a specific prescription (such as each Cadre Controlling Authority maintaining a separate cadre) and do not contain a provision enabling deviation from that prescription (such as absorption of persons from outside the cadre), executive instructions cannot be invoked to supplement or override such rules. The absence of a specific enabling provision in the rules indicates a deliberate policy choice, and that choice cannot be overridden through administrative directions or executive instructions issued under Articles 73 or 162. While employees do not have a fundamental right to transfer, the State must ensure that policies affecting conditions of service, particularly those impacting family life and dignity of employees, are informed by constitutional values of substantive equality and reasonable accommodation. In the absence of a specific legislative or rule-based framework permitting a particular benefit, courts cannot compel the executive to frame a specific policy, but they can require the State to take constitutional values into consideration when crafting policies.

   On this section: Power of the Central Board to appoint officers of customs; cited to establish the Board's authority over officer administration

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Jugan Singh vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 10 Mar 2022 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions and administrative policies when there is conflict. Where recruitment rules contain a specific provision establishing separate cadres for each controlling authority and do not contain an enabling provision for absorption of personnel from other cadres, inter-commissionerate transfers by way of absorption are not permissible, even if earlier rules contained such a provision. However, the State as a model employer must ensure that in formulating service policies, it takes into account constitutional values of equality, dignity, family life, gender justice and reasonable accommodation for disabled persons. The absence of a specific enabling provision in recruitment rules can be supplemented by properly calibrated administrative policy that accommodates genuine compassionate, spousal and disability-related needs while maintaining cadre integrity and administrative stability.

   On this section: Central Board may appoint officers of customs; establishes power of CBIC to appoint and manage customs officers

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.