2021 (4) TMI 431 - HC - Customs

Seeking permission to forthwith record their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by video conferencing in investigations under Customs Act, 1962 by temporarily waiving their physical presence - HELD THAT - In Poolpandi and Others Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others 1992 (5) TMI 147 - SUPREME COURT Supreme Court was pleased to reject the argument recorded in paragraph No.5 thereof claiming the presence of lawyer for active participation who could advise potential accused. The answer to the aforementioned objection has been given in the judgment SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER VERSUS JUGAL KISHORE SAMRA 2011 (7) TMI 910 - SUPREME COURT wherein presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance was permitted which would not amount to any active participation of the advocate. The situation of Corona/COVID-19 for the last two weeks has increased exponentially, there has been lock down in Maharashtra, Panjab, Chandigarh and various other states. Even curfews have been imposed in Delhi and Chandigarh. Considering the fact that the petitioners are in Kerala and also for the safety of the DRI officials, it is directed that petitioners would appear before the investigating officers on 15.04.2021 from 10 a.m. till 6.p.m. And would be entitled to have an advocate present at a visible distance beyond audibility during interrogation and recording of the statement. After recording the statements and completing the investigation, respondent DRI may consider it appropriate in issuing addendum to show cause notice dated 24.09.2019 as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of six weeks from 15.04.2021, so that the adjudication proceedings in respect of all the persons involved can be taken up expeditiously and till such time, for the safety of the officers and persons involved, the personal liberty of petitioners shall not be prejudiced. Application stands disposed of with the clarification in the order dated 22.06.2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking permission for video conferencing under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Clarification on expeditious issuance of show cause notices under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
3. Contempt petition regarding non-issuance of show cause notices and compliance with judgment.

Issue 1: Petition seeking permission for video conferencing under Customs Act, 1962
The petitioners, residents of Kerala, sought permission to record their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by video conferencing due to the rise in Covid-19 cases. The High Court of Delhi had permitted the petitioners to surrender in Kerala. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) confirmed the petitioners' detention in Thiruvananthapuram jail and assured expedited recording of statements post-quarantine. The Court directed the respondents to hasten the statement recording and show cause notice issuance under the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Clarification on expeditious issuance of show cause notices under Section 124 of the Customs Act
An application was filed seeking clarification on the order's direction for expeditious issuance of show cause notices under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The respondents contended that no specific timeline was set for compliance, citing legal precedents. Efforts were made to record statements, but the petitioners were uncooperative during interrogation. Show cause notices were issued, but the petitioners did not respond, necessitating further investigation for adjudication proceedings.

Issue 3: Contempt petition regarding non-issuance of show cause notices and compliance with judgment
A contempt petition was filed as show cause notices were not issued post-judgment. The respondents defended their actions, stating efforts were made to conclude the investigation. The Court emphasized expeditious completion of proceedings and directed the petitioners to appear for interrogation with legal representation. The DRI was instructed to issue addendum to show cause notices promptly for efficient adjudication proceedings, ensuring no prejudice to personal liberty.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioners' request for video conferencing, clarified the timeline for show cause notice issuance, and emphasized the importance of expeditious investigation and legal representation during proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.