2019 (12) TMI 483 - HC - Customs

Coercive action against the Petitioner and its officials for recovery of any customs duty - past imports - action during pendency of ongoing investigation and before issuance of Show Cause Notice - retraction of statements - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT - There is only a presumption that the respondent is going to take coercive action against this petitioner - There are no reason to pass any order in favour of the petitioner for refund of the amount as prayed for in this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks relief from coercive action and refund of customs duty.
2. Alleged violation of Customs Act, 1962 and investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
3. Deposits made by the petitioner and retraction of statements.
4. Legal arguments regarding coercion, evidentiary value of statements, and refund of deposited amount.
5. Court's decision on the refund and coercive action relief sought by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested relief from coercive action and refund of customs duty deposited during the ongoing investigation. The petitioner had deposited a total of ?50 lakhs with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The investigation was related to an alleged violation of the Customs Act, 1962, with statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the deposits were made under coercion, citing retraction statements by individuals whose statements were recorded. However, the court found insufficient evidence of coercion based on the annexures in the writ petition. The court noted that coercion must be established with cogent evidence.

3. The court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing, and the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be determined at that stage. The retraction of statements may not always affect their evidentiary value. The court refrained from appreciating the statements or their retractions at that point.

4. The court concluded that it was premature to order a refund of the deposited amount, as various factors, such as the issuance of notices, voluntary nature of deposition, and acceptance of retracted statements, needed consideration. The petitioner was advised to pursue recovery through a suit if necessary.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was only a presumption of coercive action by the respondent. The court expected the respondent to conduct the investigation in accordance with the law, rules, regulations, and government policies. The decision highlighted the need for a comprehensive assessment of the legal and factual aspects before ordering a refund or relief from coercive action.