9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 871 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - arrest made in the instant case of the petitioner was in accordance with law having been made by the DRI and not a proper person in terms of the Customs Act or not - HELD THAT - Response of the respondents be filed within a period of four weeks and in the meantime till the next date of hearing the proceedings in relation to file bearing DRI F.NO. DRI / IZU/CI/INT-02/ENQ-03/2021 are stayed. The matter in the circumstances, is directed to be renotified for the date 1.2.2022.
Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of actions initiated by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Quashing of inquiry/investigation and consequential proceedings. 3. Compliance of directions in a bail application. 4. Stay of proceedings initiated by the DRI. 5. Affidavit submission regarding compliance of a court order. 6. Status of investigation and proceedings conducted by the DRI. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ to declare actions initiated by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Indore Regional Unit under Sections 104 & 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 for their arrest as without authority of law and void ab-initio. The petitioner relied on the verdict of Cannon India Private Limited V. Commissioner of Customs and an order of the Division Bench of the High Court. Notice was issued to the respondents, and a stay was granted on the proceedings related to the file in question until the next hearing. 2. Another prayer made by the petitioner was to quash the inquiry/investigation and any consequential proceedings regarding the same file number. The petitioner argued that the arrest made was not in accordance with the law as it was done by the DRI, not a 'proper person' as per the Customs Act. The court directed the respondents to file their response within four weeks, and the proceedings related to the file were stayed until the next hearing. 3. There was a mention of a bail application where the respondent claimed non-compliance of certain directions imposed by the court. The petitioner refuted this claim, and it was directed that an affidavit regarding the compliance of the order be submitted before the next hearing. The court addressed the issue of compliance and directed the petitioner to provide the necessary affidavit. 4. The petitioner filed a Crl.M.A seeking a stay on the proceedings initiated by the DRI under the same file number. The court granted a stay on the proceedings until the next date of hearing. The stay was provided to ensure no further action was taken by the DRI until the matter was resolved. 5. In response to the claim of non-compliance of directions in a bail application, the court directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit regarding the stated compliance of the court order dated 22.4.2021 before the next date of hearing. This was done to ensure that the petitioner followed the court's directions as required. 6. The status of the investigation and proceedings conducted by the DRI was also addressed in the judgment. The respondents mentioned that there was no stay on any investigation or proceedings being conducted by the DRI as per a pending case before the Division Bench. The matter was directed to be renotified for a specific date to address the ongoing investigation and proceedings conducted by the DRI.
|
