9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 732 - HC - CustomsValidity of summons - The grounds of challenge was that the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent and co-operated with the investigation and submitted all documents, however, he was brutally handled by the officers of the second respondent and issuing further summons calling upon the petitioner to appear without disclosing the reasons for such appearance is not sustainable - whether a Writ Court can injunct or quash the summons and after taking note of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, vs. MM Exports, 2007 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable. Held that - Though the petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to prohibit the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the summons dated 06.11.2017, it is an indirect challenge to the summons. The petitioner having been unsuccessful in its earlier attempt, cannot now maintain these Writ Petitions and indirectly challenged the summons issued by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from approaching this Court for an identical relief for the second time. In the instant case, the exercise done by the second respondent is investigation and it does not pertain to a single consignment imported by the petitioners. By the summons, dated 06.11.2017, the petitioners have been called upon to produce documents pertaining to the imports done for the period from 2013-14 to 2016-17. Infact, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition specifically directed that the summons should set out reasons for which the petitioner is being summoned. This has been explicitly stated with summons dated 06.11.2017. Therefore, it is not a singular transaction, which is being investigated, but past transaction as well. The petitioners have not made out any case for grant of any relief in these Writ Petitions - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition challenging summons. 2. Jurisdiction of the Senior Intelligence Officer to issue summons. 3. Compliance with previous court directions in issuing summons. 4. Legal precedents on the authority to issue summons under the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Writ Petition challenging summons: The court addressed whether a Writ Court can quash or injunct a summons. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in *Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, vs. MM Exports*, it was held that High Courts should not interfere at the stage of summons issuance except in exceptional cases. The court concluded that challenging a summons through a Writ Petition is not maintainable. The petitioners' earlier Writ Petition was dismissed on similar grounds, and the court reiterated that the current petitions are also not maintainable. 2. Jurisdiction of the Senior Intelligence Officer to issue summons: The petitioners contended that the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit lacked jurisdiction to summon them since the goods were imported through Chennai Port. They relied on decisions in *UOI vs. Ram Narain Bishwanth & Ors.* and *Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore*. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting they pertained to the Customs Act and the jurisdiction of officers based on the port of import. In contrast, the present case involved an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which has all-India jurisdiction under Notification No.17/2002. The court held that the Senior Intelligence Officer has the authority to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Compliance with previous court directions in issuing summons: The court noted that in the earlier Writ Petition, it had directed the respondents to issue fresh summons specifying the reasons for summoning the petitioner. The summons dated 06.11.2017 complied with this direction by listing the documents required from the petitioners for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. Therefore, the court found that the respondents had adhered to the court's previous instructions, making the current challenge to the summons unsustainable. 4. Legal precedents on the authority to issue summons under the Customs Act, 1962: The court referred to several precedents, including *Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria*, which emphasized that courts should not interfere with the investigative process unless it transgresses legal provisions. The court also cited *South India Exports vs. Joint Director of Foreign Trade*, which upheld the authority of Senior Intelligence Officers to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court concluded that the Senior Intelligence Officer, being a Gazetted Officer, had the requisite authority to issue the summons in question. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that they were not maintainable and that the Senior Intelligence Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the summons. The petitioners were directed to comply with the summons and produce the required documents for the investigation. The court reiterated that it is not the function of the judiciary to monitor or interfere with the investigative processes unless there is a clear legal violation.
|
