2019 (9) TMI 1295 - HC - Customs

Failure to attend hearing for which summons were issued - Under-valuation of imported goods - RO membranes - search and seizure - the summons were issued for securing the presence of this petitioner but the petitioner has failed to attend the hearing before Respondent No.2 - willful disobedience - Section 174 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - If the summons are not followed by this petitioner the respondents are bound to initiate further coercive action in accordance with law - It is a bounden duty of this petitioner to go to the investigation officer/department respondent No.2. All depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the cooperation by this petitioner. The summons issued by Respondent No.2 is set aside - the petitioner has to attend hearing before the DRI Ahmedabad as per summons issued to this petitioner - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to search & seizure and summons validity, Avoidance of summons, Willful disobedience proceedings, Cooperation with investigation, Quashing of search & seizure and summons, Non-cooperation consequences.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to search & seizure and summons validity:
The petitioner sought to quash the search & seizure conducted on a specific date and various summons issued subsequently. The court noted that the search and seizure were conducted due to a complaint against a company for under-valuation of goods. The petitioner challenged the validity of the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for avoiding attendance at the investigation proceedings.

2. Avoidance of summons:
The court observed that the petitioner had avoided attending most of the summons issued by the DRI for investigation purposes. Despite multiple summons from July 2018 onwards, the petitioner failed to cooperate by attending the hearings. This non-cooperation led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code for willful disobedience.

3. Willful disobedience proceedings:
The court highlighted that the petitioner's failure to attend the investigation proceedings and cooperate with the authorities resulted in the initiation of proceedings for willful disobedience. The petitioner's reliance on a previous court order was deemed irrelevant due to the repeated avoidance of summons in the present case.

4. Cooperation with investigation:
Emphasizing the importance of cooperation, the court stated that the petitioner's attendance and cooperation were crucial for expeditiously completing the investigation. Failure to comply with the summons not only prolonged the investigation but also empowered the authorities to take coercive actions as per the law.

5. Quashing of search & seizure and summons:
The court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the search & seizure conducted by the DRI and set aside the summons issued. It emphasized that the petitioner must attend the summons and cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The duration and outcome of the investigation heavily relied on the cooperation between the parties involved.

6. Non-cooperation consequences:
The court warned that if the petitioner continued to be non-cooperative and avoid attending the summons, the authorities were justified in initiating further coercive actions in accordance with the law. The dismissal of the writ petition indicated that the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the validity of the search & seizure and the summons issued by the DRI.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's duty to cooperate with the investigation and attend the summons issued by the authorities. Failure to comply could lead to the initiation of coercive actions as per the law, highlighting the significance of cooperation in expeditiously resolving the matter.