2019 (9) TMI 1223 - HC - Customs

Demand of duty based on the statements of two person claimed to be as Partner and Director of the petitioner - Petitioner in the writ petition, challenging the statement, failed to produce both of them - Reliability on statements made - HELD THAT - the excuses advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner for the non-appearance of Mr. Surat and Mr. Baweja to be completely unacceptable. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition to seek relief from this Court in the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. A Petitioner who approaches the Court has to come clean, and cannot play hide and seek with the Court. The statements made by Mr. Surat in his affidavit are completely belied by his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is admissible in evidence. Aforesaid being the position, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. We are accordingly dismissed this writ petition with costs quantifying as ₹ 2 lacs to be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Trust Fund. Bailable warrants issued for production of Mr. Surat before this Court, since he appears to have consciously sworn a false affidavit before this Court. He shall also show cause as to why proceedings for perjury should not be initiated against him.

Summary

Issues: Examination of Mr. Surat and Mr. Rabindra Baweja, Non-appearance of Mr. Surat and Mr. Baweja, Authenticity of Mr. Surat's statements, Clean hands doctrine violation, Dismissal of writ petition, Costs imposition, Issuance of bailable warrants, Perjury proceedings initiation

Examination of Mr. Surat and Mr. Rabindra Baweja:
The court directed the petitioner to produce Mr. Surat and Mr. Rabindra Baweja for examination in court based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The respondents were instructed to keep available the statements of both individuals for the next hearing. However, despite the court's direction, neither Mr. Surat nor Mr. Baweja appeared in court, leading to further scrutiny of the situation.

Non-appearance of Mr. Surat and Mr. Baweja:
The petitioner's counsel verbally stated that Mr. Surat was unable to appear without providing reasons for his absence. On the other hand, Mr. Baweja did not show up, citing non-receipt of the order as the reason. The court found these excuses inadequate, emphasizing that petitioners must be transparent and cannot evade court proceedings.

Authenticity of Mr. Surat's statements:
Upon examination, the court observed similarities in Mr. Surat's signatures on the affidavit and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Mr. Surat denied knowledge of the consignment imported by the petitioner and the filing of the writ petition, claiming he signed documents based on Mr. Baweja's instructions. Discrepancies between his affidavit and recorded statement raised doubts about the veracity of his claims.

Clean hands doctrine violation and Dismissal of writ petition:
The court concluded that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands due to inconsistencies between Mr. Surat's affidavit and recorded statement. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and costs amounting to ?2 lakhs were imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Trust Fund.

Issuance of bailable warrants and Perjury proceedings initiation:
Bailable warrants were ordered for the production of Mr. Surat, who allegedly provided false information in his affidavit. He was directed to show cause regarding potential perjury proceedings. The warrants, valued at ?1 lakh, were to be executed through the relevant Station House Officer and returnable on a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the examination of key issues, including the authenticity of statements, compliance with court directives, adherence to legal principles, and the consequences of non-compliance or misleading conduct in the judicial process.