2016 (10) TMI 21 - HC - Customs

Permission for re-export of goods after lifting of seizure - waiver of detention charges - reexamination of goods - carpets - No Objection Certificate - affidavits filed by DRI - Held that - The DRI should refrain from expressing any opinion even prima facie about the legality and validity of the acts. The distinct departure in the nature of functions and duties is lost sight of and more because of the overenthusiasm by the DRI. While the proceedings are going and any other request is raised by the petitioner, then that request would have to be examined not by the DRI but by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) or his delegates - examination by Commissioner of Customs to be done as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks - while passing any orders, the said Officer shall issue a notice to the petitioner to appear before him and decide the issue raised by a reasoned order, uninfluenced by any of the contents and statements in the affidavit in reply - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for re-export of goods and waiver of detention charges.
2. Allegations of fraud by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) leading to investigations.
3. Petitioner's claim of delay in processing No Objection Certificate (NOC) for export.
4. Authority's failure to consider alternate request for re-export of goods.
5. Court's assessment of the situation and directions for further examination by the Commissioner of Customs.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order for the re-export of goods covered by three Bill of Lading Nos. The petitioner contended that despite responding to summonses and facing heavy detention charges, the authorities had not processed the necessary documents for export, leading to a loss of interest from foreign buyers. The Court acknowledged the situation and directed the authorities to consider the request for re-export expeditiously.

2. The DRI filed an affidavit alleging fraud on the Revenue and detailing ongoing investigations. The Court noted the investigations but cautioned against disclosing detailed opinions that could prejudice adjudication proceedings. The Court emphasized the distinction between investigative powers and adjudication processes, urging the DRI to refrain from expressing opinions that could influence the case. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and unbiased decision-making process.

3. The Court observed doubts raised about the petitioner's transactions and the initiation of investigations due to suspected fraud. In light of the ongoing investigations, the Court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) or delegates to examine the petitioner's request for re-export within four weeks. The Court emphasized that the decision should be based on merits, independent of the DRI's recommendations, and in accordance with the law.

4. The Court highlighted the importance of a fair and impartial decision-making process, instructing the Customs authorities to issue a notice to the petitioner, decide the matter by reasoned order, and not rely solely on the DRI's report or recommendations. The Court emphasized the need for a lawful and unbiased decision-making process, ensuring that the matter is resolved strictly on its merits. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with these directions for further examination by the Customs authorities.