2018 (8) TMI 1306 - HC - Customs

Public Interest Litigation - Sensitive materials were brought into India without following due process of law - compromise of national security and safety - Smuggling activities - Held that - It is noteworthy that the petitioners are business rivals of the companies against whom allegations are made in these petitions. It is evident that the opportunity to import the goods for Aero Show was lost to the rival companies and therefore the petitioners have an axe to grind against those companies. The subject matter of these petitions and grounds urged leave nothing to doubt that the petitioners are out to harass the rival companies and are attempting to secure the orders/directions against them on the specious grounds of the loss to exchequer. The cause of action in this matter arose in the year 2009 and the petitioners after lapse of three years made a complaint to the concerned authority and then approached this court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction only in the month of June 2017. The casual explanation offered is that though the complaint was lodged in the year 2012 the investigation was tardy and the petitioners were pursuing the matter before the investigating officer - In an appropriate case this Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the petitioners taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental rights are involved the matter is still within the discretion of this Court. In the present case the oblique motive and relentless efforts of the petitioners directed against their business rivals is more than obvious. Not being satisfied with an earlier attempt the tirade continues inasmuch as the petitioners are seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court keeping the affected parties in dark - This Court is of the firm opinion that this is a fit case where the petition should be dismissed while imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners and other non-monetary directions. Petition dismissed while imposing costs.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of smuggling sensitive materials without paying customs duty, delay in filing petition, misuse of PIL jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, imposition of costs, debarment from filing future PILs.

Allegations of Smuggling Sensitive Materials without Paying Customs Duty:
The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that certain sensitive materials were brought into India without following due process of law, causing revenue loss and compromising national security. The petitioners claimed that during the "Aero India 2009" Exhibition, companies imported Fighter Aircraft F-16 and its equipment without paying customs duty, which they considered smuggling. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted an inquiry, but the investigating officer was transferred, leading to no progress. The petition sought recovery of evaded import duty, taxes, and ensuring national security.

Delay in Filing Petition:
Respondents argued that the cause of action arose in 2009, but the complaint was lodged in 2012 and the petition filed in 2017, leading to dismissal on grounds of delay and laches. Customs duty exemption for goods displayed in exhibitions sponsored by the Government of India was cited, stating that the imported goods were re-exported within the stipulated period. A previous PIL on a similar issue was disposed of in 2011, involving one of the present petitioners.

Misuse of PIL Jurisdiction and Abuse of Process of Law:
The court noted that the petitioners, business rivals of the accused companies, filed the PIL to harass their competitors. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that PIL should not be used for personal gain, private motives, or vexatious purposes. The judgment highlighted the need for genuine public interest in PILs, cautioning against using the judicial process for ulterior motives.

Imposition of Costs and Debarment from Future PILs:
The court dismissed the petitions, imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners for abusing the legal process. Each petitioner was directed to pay ?2,00,000 to the Commissioner of Customs within two weeks, with non-compliance leading to recovery by the authorities. The petitioners were barred from filing any future public interest litigations before the court, except for personal causes.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the allegations of smuggling, the significance of timely filing petitions, the misuse of PIL jurisdiction, the consequences of abusing the legal process, and the imposition of costs and debarment from future PILs as a deterrent against frivolous litigation.