2008 (5) TMI 713 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Rs. 70,00,000/- extorted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Legality of the search and seizure operations conducted by the DRI.
3. Validity of the self-inculpatory statements obtained under duress.
4. Non-issuance of a show-cause notice by the DRI.
5. Legality of retaining the Rs. 70,00,000/- without any demand being raised.
6. Requirement for the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Rs. 70,00,000/- Extorted by the DRI:
The petitioner alleged that the DRI extorted Rs. 70,00,000/- illegally and under duress. The petitioner claimed that due to threats of arrest and coercion, the Managing Partner agreed to tender a draft of Rs. 70,00,000/-. The court noted that the DRI had not issued any show-cause notice or raised any demand against the petitioner, making the retention of the amount unjustifiable. The court directed the DRI to refund the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- within a month, with the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to secure the interest of the DRI.

2. Legality of the Search and Seizure Operations Conducted by the DRI:
The petitioner's premises were searched based on intelligence reports, and various items were seized. The DRI claimed that the searches were conducted due to misuse of export incentives by exporting semi-finished leather as finished leather. The court observed that the goods were cleared by the Customs Department after rigorous testing and found matching with the declarations. The court questioned the necessity of the DRI's actions when the goods had already been cleared by Customs.

3. Validity of the Self-Inculpatory Statements Obtained Under Duress:
The petitioner retracted the self-inculpatory statements made under duress. The DRI denied the allegations of coercion and claimed that the statements were made voluntarily. The court did not delve deeply into the validity of the statements but emphasized the lack of any formal demand or adjudication process initiated by the DRI.

4. Non-Issuance of a Show-Cause Notice by the DRI:
The DRI admitted that no show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, as investigations were still ongoing. The court found this lack of formal communication problematic, as it left the petitioner without a clear understanding of the allegations or the opportunity to respond formally. The court highlighted that the DRI should have associated the Customs Department before taking any steps against the petitioner.

5. Legality of Retaining the Rs. 70,00,000/- Without Any Demand Being Raised:
The court found the DRI's retention of the Rs. 70,00,000/- without any formal demand or adjudication process to be unfair and arbitrary. The court referenced a previous judgment (M/s Bhagwati International) where it was held that in the absence of a demand, the retention of deposited amounts was unjustifiable. The court ordered the refund of the amount with the petitioner providing a bank guarantee to protect the revenue's interest.

6. Requirement for the Petitioner to Furnish a Bank Guarantee:
The court initially directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 70,00,000/- to secure the DRI's interest. However, upon further consideration, the court found that in the absence of any demand, the requirement for a bank guarantee was not legally justified. The court ordered the release of the bank guarantee but kept the petitioner's property as security to meet any future demand.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the DRI's actions were arbitrary and unjustified in the absence of a formal demand or show-cause notice. The court ordered the refund of Rs. 70,00,000/- to the petitioner and released the bank guarantee, securing the petitioner's property as a precautionary measure. The court emphasized the need for the DRI to finalize its investigation expeditiously within one year and clarified that the observations made should not prejudice the parties' rights. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →