2021 (11) TMI 669 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Raw Silver Bars weighting in the form of small balls/granules - cross-examination of the concerned Investigating Officer - HELD THAT - The petitioners have stated that since the respondents have failed to prove the fact that the seized silver bars have been smuggled into India, the petitioners should not be harassed and those silver items seized in the case should be returned to them. Issue notice, returnable by 08.12.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of silver bars and granules by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
2. Show cause notice issued under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Delay in concluding the case by the Customs Department.
4. Jurisdiction of Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
5. Allegations of harassment and illegal import of silver bars.
6. Request for return of seized silver items.

Analysis:
1. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 87 pieces of Raw Silver Bars and 12 packets of Raw Silver Bars weighing a total of 120.740 Kgs from the business premises of the petitioners. The seizure was valued at ?57,95,520 in the open market at the time of seizure on 23.09.2016.

2. The Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioners on 15.09.2017. The notice asked the petitioners to explain why the seized silver bars should not be confiscated under Sections 111(b) & (d) of the Customs Act for being smuggled into India through unauthorized channels. The petitioners submitted their reply on 06.01.2018 before the Commissioner of Customs.

3. The petitioners raised concerns about the delay in concluding the case by the Customs Department, stating that it has been pending for more than 5 years, causing harassment to them without valid reasons.

4. The petitioners cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case, highlighting that the Additional Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence may not be the appropriate authority to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act.

5. The petitioners' counsel presented evidence from the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, indicating a lack of clarity on the origin of the seized silver bars and the circumstances of their importation. The petitioners argued that since the respondents failed to prove that the silver bars were smuggled into India, they should not be harassed, and the seized items should be returned.

6. The petitioners requested the court to consider their plea for the return of the seized silver items. The court issued notice returnable by a specified date, and the Central Government counsel and DRI counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners were directed to serve extra copies of the writ petition to the counsels by a specified date for acknowledgment. The interim prayer of the petitioners would be considered after the filing of an affidavit by the respondents in the DRI.