JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the assessee challenging the show-cause notice dated 18.12.2009 issued by the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone Unit, New Delhi asking the petitioner why the assessable amount of Rs. 11,87,710/- in respect of goods imported by the assessee should not be rejected and the goods should not be confiscated with further levy of customs duty with interest and penalties. The show-cause notice has been challenged by the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the Director of Revenue Intelligence do not have jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice and secondly, that the show-cause notice proceedings have lingered on for unduly long time and therefore any further continuation is opposed to the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the documents and pleadings on record and pointed out that the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Revenue Intelligence is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs ( AIR 2021 SC 1699 ). He submitted that this decision of Supreme Court has been followed by several High Courts and show-cause notices issued by the DRI authorities have been set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited (2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.)) which has been followed by different other High Courts in which on the ground of gross delay in disposal of the proceedings which was unexplained, the proceedings were quashed. 3. With respect to the delay in concluding the show-cause notice, our attention was drawn to the chronological events as per which the show-cause notice was issued on 18.12.2009. Personal hearing was held for the first time thereafter on 26.02.2013. Without any further development, the show-cause notice was transferred to Call Book (an expression used in the customs department to keep a certain proceeding dormant on account of specific reasons) on 26.08.2016. It was recalled from the Call Book shortly thereafter on 03.01.2017. Personal hearings were conducted on 28.02.2017 and 25.05.2017. Again it was sent to the Call Book on 13.12.2017 and reactivated on 08.11.2019. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Court and took up the question of delay in disposal of the proceedings. 4. It was recalled from the Call Book shortly thereafter on 03.01.2017. Personal hearings were conducted on 28.02.2017 and 25.05.2017. Again it was sent to the Call Book on 13.12.2017 and reactivated on 08.11.2019. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Court and took up the question of delay in disposal of the proceedings. 4. The reply of the respondents is that the department has filed a review petition in the case of Canon India Private Limited (supra), which is pending. With respect to the delay in disposal of the proceedings it was argued that the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act and in particular Sub-section (4) thereof as it prevailed at the relevant time, did not provide a rigid period of limitation for disposal of show-cause notice proceedings. All that was stated was that as far as possible, the same should be disposed of within a specified time. Learned counsel for the department pointed out that the petitioner itself had, on numerous occasions requested the department to keep the matter in the Call Book Register since the SLP filed by the department against the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Mangli Impex Limited Versus Union of India was pending. He therefore argued that the petitioner cannot take shelter of the delay particularly on the ground that the matter was kept in the Call Book. 5. In the present case, the question of lack of jurisdiction of the DRI authorities issuing the impugned show-cause notice is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited (supra). In the said case, this issue came up for consideration and was decided in following manner: "18. The next step is to see whether an Additional Director General of the DRI who has been appointed as an officer of Customs, under the notification dated 7.3.2002, has been entrusted with the functions under Section 28 as a proper officer under the Customs Act. In support of the contention that he has been so entrusted with the functions of a proper officer under Section 28 of the Customs Act, Shri Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General relied on a Notification No. 40/2012 dated 2.5.2012 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In support of the contention that he has been so entrusted with the functions of a proper officer under Section 28 of the Customs Act, Shri Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General relied on a Notification No. 40/2012 dated 2.5.2012 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The notification confers various functions referred to in Column (3) of the notification under the Customs Act on officers referred to in Column (2). The relevant part of the notification reads as follows:- "[To be published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii)] Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 40/2012-Customs (N.T.) New Delhi, dated the 2nd May, 2012 S.O. (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (34) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, hereby assigns the officers and above the rank of officers mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below, the functions as the proper officers in relation to the various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, given in the corresponding entry in Column (3) of the said Table:- Sl. No. Designation of the officers Functions Under Section of the Customs Act, 1962 (1) (2) (3) 1. Commissioner Customs (i) Section 33 2. Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner Customs (i) Sub-section (5) of Section 46; and (ii) Section 149 3. Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v) ..... (vi) Section 28; 9. It appears that a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs has been entrusted with the functions under Section 28, vide Sl. No. 3 above. By reason of the fact that the functions are assigned to officers referred to in Column (3) and those officers above the rank of officers mentioned in Column (2), the Commissioner of Customs would be included as an officer entitled to perform the function under Section 28 of the Act conferred on a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner but the notification appears to be ill-founded. The notification is purported to have been issued in exercise of powers under sub-Section (34) of Section 2 of the Customs Act. This section does not confer any powers on any authority to entrust any functions to officers. The notification is purported to have been issued in exercise of powers under sub-Section (34) of Section 2 of the Customs Act. This section does not confer any powers on any authority to entrust any functions to officers. The sub-Section is part of the definitions clause of the Act, it merely defines a proper officer, it reads as follows:- "2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ... (34) 'proper officer', in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs]." 20. Section 6 is the only Section which provides for entrustment of functions of Customs officer on other officers of the Central or the State Government or local authority, it reads as follows:- "6. Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers-The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to any officer of the Central or the State Government or a local authority any functions of the Board or any officer of customs under this Act." 21. If it was intended that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are officers of Central Government should be entrusted with functions of the Customs officers, it was imperative that the Central Government should have done so in exercise of its power under Section 6 of the Act. The reason why such a power is conferred on the Central Government is obvious and that is because the Central Government is the authority which appoints both the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence which is set up under the Notification dated 04.12.1957 issued by the Ministry of Finance and Customs officers who, till 11.5.2002, were appointed by the Central Government. The notification which purports to entrust functions as proper officer under the Customs Act has been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of non-existing power under Section 2 (34) of the Customs Act. The notification is obviously invalid having been issued by an authority which had no power to do so in purported exercise of powers under a section which does not confer any such power. 22. The notification is obviously invalid having been issued by an authority which had no power to do so in purported exercise of powers under a section which does not confer any such power. 22. In the above context, it would be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali and Another (2011) 3 SCC 537 wherein the proper officer in respect of the jurisdictional area was considered. The consideration made is as hereunder:- "16. It was submitted that in the instant case, the import manifest and the bill of entry were filed before the Additional Collector of Customs (Imports), Mumbai; the bill of entry was duly assessed, and the benefit of the exemption was extended, subject to execution of a bond by the importer which was duly executed undertaking the obligation of export. The learned counsel argued that the function of the preventive staff is confined to goods which are not manifested as in respect of manifested goods, where the bills of entry are to be filed, the entire function of assessment, clearance, etc. is carried out by the appraising officers functioning under the Commissioner of Customs (Imports). 17. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to survey the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 28 of the Act, which is relevant for our purpose, provides for issue of notice for payment of duty that has not been paid, or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, and provides that: "28. 17. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to survey the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 28 of the Act, which is relevant for our purpose, provides for issue of notice for payment of duty that has not been paid, or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, and provides that: "28. Notice for payment of duties, interest, etc.-(1) When any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, or when any interest payable has not been paid, part paid or erroneously refunded, the proper officer may,- (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been so short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that where any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words 'one year' and 'six months', the words 'five years' were substituted." 18. It is plain from the provision that the 'proper officer' being subjectively satisfied on the basis of the material that may be with him that customs duty has not been levied or short levied or erroneously refunded on an import made by any individual for his personal use or by the Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year and in all other cases within six months from the relevant date, may cause service of notice on the person chargeable, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. It is evident that the notice under the said provision has to be issued by the 'proper officer'. 19. It is evident that the notice under the said provision has to be issued by the 'proper officer'. 19. Section 2(34) of the Act defines a 'proper officer', thus: '2. Definitions.- (34) 'proper officer', in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs;' It is clear from a mere look at the provision that only such officers of customs who have been assigned specific functions would be 'proper officers' in terms of Section 2(34) the Act. Specific entrustment of function by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs is therefore, the governing test to determine whether an 'officer of customs' is the 'proper officer'. 20. From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and re-assessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been affected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Act otiose inasmuch as the test contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions." 23. We, therefore, hold that the entire proceeding in the present case initiated by the Additional Director General of the DRI by issuing show cause notices in all the matters before us are invalid without any authority of law and liable to be set-aside and the ensuing demands are also set-aside." 6. This judgment holds the field today and mere pendency of the review petition would not divest the decision of its precedential value. In view of this, it is not necessary to examine the petitioner's second ground of challenge i.e. delay in disposal of the proceedings. 7. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned show-cause notice is set aside with consequential effect. If the petitioner has given any guarantees on account of pendency of these proceedings, the same would stand discharged. If the petitioner has made any deposit with the department against the possible demand that may be adjudicated in the show-cause notice in question, the same would also become refundable.