2019 (7) TMI 837 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - Mis-declaration of the countries of destination - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the investigations have been transferred to the DRI Zonal Office, Ludhiana where the unit of the private company is situated and engaged in its business. It is submitted that in view of the conceded cooperation by the officers of the aforesaid private company in the pending investigations, the impugned complaint and summoning order are required to be set aside as concededly the documents were furnished before the officials at Ahemdabad, however, it was the non presence of the director which had actuated the initiation of the complaint. On the previous dates of hearing, counsel for the DRI had sought time to seek instructions with regard to withdrawing of the said complaint at Ahemdabad, the proceedings of which are not warranted in view of the subsequent developments - In the light of the investigations having been transferred to Ludhiana and the counsel for DRI having undertaken to get the aforesaid complaint withdrawn within next one month, no further adjudication is required in the present writ petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional challenge to complaint and summoning order

In this case, the petitioner, a director of a private company involved in the manufacture and export of ready-made garments, challenged a complaint and summoning order issued by the DRI Ahemdabad Zone for mis-declaration of export transactions under a scheme. The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order primarily on the ground of jurisdiction.

The petitioner's counsel argued that during the pendency of the writ petition, the investigations were transferred to the DRI Zonal Office in Ludhiana where the company was located. It was highlighted that the company had cooperated in the investigations, and the complaint was initiated due to the non-presence of the director during the proceedings in Ahemdabad.

The DRI's counsel informed the court that they needed time to seek instructions on withdrawing the complaint in Ahemdabad, as the proceedings were no longer necessary following the transfer of investigations to Ludhiana. The DRI's counsel assured the court that they would withdraw the complaint within the next month.

Considering the transfer of investigations to Ludhiana and the assurance given by the DRI's counsel regarding withdrawing the complaint, the court held that no further adjudication was required in the present writ petition and disposed of the matter. The respondents were directed to adhere to the stand taken by their counsel before the court.