2019 (10) TMI 1276 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - choice of venue of the investigating agency - power of DRI to take up investigation of a particular unit - Summon of petitioners - enquiry stated to have been undertaken by the respondents in relation to the export activities of the petitioners - HELD THAT - Perusal of a judgment of the Supreme Court in DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI VERSUS ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA 1997 (11) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT , that there is a mandate by the Supreme Court against interfering with the functions of the statutory authorities when they function in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held that it is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law, and that it must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order insulating a person from arrest would made his interrogation a mere ritual. The writ petitions is disposed off directing the petitioners therein to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar for recording of sworn statements on a date mutually convenient to the petitioners as well as the officials to be fixed by the respondent by issue of a notice - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of summoning petitioners to Jamnagar for investigation by respondents.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a Company and a Partnership firm engaged in seafood export, challenged the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer in Jamnagar for an investigation related to their export activities under the MEIS scheme. The petitioners contended that since DRI has regional offices in Kerala, summoning them to Jamnagar was unnecessary. They also cited medical reasons for being unable to travel to Jamnagar. In response, the DRI stated that the investigation was initiated by the Jamnagar Unit on an All India basis due to suspicions of wrongful benefits availed through mis-description in shipping bills. The DRI justified summoning the petitioners to Jamnagar, emphasizing that the investigating agency's centralized location facilitated a thorough investigation. The DRI relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their choice of venue for the investigation.

The court considered the arguments presented and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dukhishyam Benupani's case, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with the functions of statutory authorities conducting investigations within the prescribed legal procedures. It was noted that the investigating agency has the discretion to determine the venue, timing, and manner of interrogation as long as it complies with the law. The court highlighted that preventing a person from being arrested could render the interrogation a mere formality. Citing decisions from various High Courts, including Gujarat and Madras, the court endorsed the principle that the investigating agency's choice of venue should be respected. Consequently, the court directed the petitioners to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar for recording sworn statements, ensuring the process adheres to natural justice principles and the provisions of the law. The court emphasized that the recording of evidence should be voluntary without coercion, addressing the petitioners' concerns. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, requiring the petitioners to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar as directed.