15.In this backdrop, let us now consider the definition for 'proper officer' enumerated under Section 2(34) of the Act. The proper officer is defined as “in relation to any functions to be performed under the Act, means the Officer of Customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs. Thus, the proper officer is defined so as to include the officer of customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board. In the present case, by invoking the powers under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Board conferred powers to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and authorises him to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on the Commissioner of Customs, Port Imports, Chennai for the purposes of adjudicating the matters relating to show cause notice. Therefore, it is unambiguous that the Board appointed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa as a proper officer under Section 4(1) and the said Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa is empowered to exercise powers of the officers of customs under Section 5 and with reference to the definition of proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Act. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in respect of the powers exercised in the present case. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not related to the conferment of powers by the Board under Section 4(1) and 5 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the word 'proper officer' and as per the definition under Section 2(34) of the Act, 'proper officer' means the officer having jurisdiction over the concerned person. However, in the event of exercising the powers under Section 4 (1), if the Board appoints any other officer as an officer of customs, then such an officer becomes the proper officer within the definition under Section 2(34) of the Act, who in turn is empowered to exercise the powers of officers of customs under Section 5 of the Act.
