9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri S.N. Kantawala with Memant H. Dave, for the Petitioner. S/Shri A.M. Sethana with M.S. Bhardwaj, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (Oral)]. The Petitioner claims to be an informer. He claims to have furnished information to officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Mumbai to the effect that a company forming part of the More Group of Companies obtained advance licences and imported products such as polythene granules, copper cathodes, mulberry silk and RBD palmoline at the Ports of Calcutta, Nhava Sheva and Kandla and had evaded customs duty by under invoicing the imports and by acting upon forged documents. According to the Petitioner, the D.R.I. arrested Ashwini Kumar More, a director of one of the entities and recovered an amount of Rs. 22.8 crores towards duty liable to be paid. Demand drafts are stated to have been deposited with the State Bank of India, Kandla Branch. According to the Petitioner, the value of the goods seized and confiscated is Rs. 16 crores and the duty collected is Rs. 2.88 crores. 2. The Petitioner claims to be entitled to a reward representing 20% of the value of the goods confiscated and duty rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. Various amounts representing the sale proceeds came to be adjusted. An amount of Rs. 1.10 crores is stated to have been paid in terms of the order of adjudication. Another show cause notice issued to Associated Industries, Tinsukhia is stated to have resulted in an order of adjudication dated 29 July 2002 whereunder an amount of Rs. 69.03 lacs which was deposited with the Commissioner of Customs was directed to be confiscated. 4. In para 10 of the affidavit in reply it has been stated that the DRI Zonal Unit at Mumbai forwarded with a letter dated 13 August 2004 a copy of DRI-1 (the form filled by the informer). However, it has been stated that the information recorded in the DIR-1 form indicated that Mr. Ashwin Kumar More of More Overseas, Calcutta was importing Polypropylene HDPE, Mulberry Silk and Copper Cathode and under-invoicing the imports. Nine companies belonging to the importer were listed. It has been stated that instead of mentioning Associated Industries, the information disclosed the name of an entity by the name of Associated Agencies and the commodity RBD Palmolein is not mentioned in the information supplied. 5. Finally it has been stated in the affidav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformers and Govt. servants, immediately after seizure, if the authority competent to sanction a reward is satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be confiscated on adjudication and the order of adjudication is likely to be sustained in appeal or revision. Clause 6.3 stipulates that in all other cases, including Customs appraising cases, normally, no advance/interim reward will be granted. However, in cases where the parties/persons involved have voluntarily paid the amount of duty evaded during the course of investigation, admitting their liability, 25% of the voluntary deposits may be considered for payment as advance/interim reward to the informers. Under Clause 7.1 final rewards both to officers as well as informers can be sanctioned and disbursed only after conclusion of adjudication/appeal/revision proceedings. Clause 8 of the Policy both in its original form and as amended provides for a delegation of powers for sanctioning and payment of rewards. The power to sanction and pay rewards is delegated to Committees separately specified depending upon the monetary limit involved in the case. Clause 9 provides that a final reward sanctioned by the duly constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner had in fact supplied information and was an informer who had furnished information in regard to imports undertaken by the More Group of companies on the basis of bogus advance licences. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the documentary material which has been filed by the Revenue in the form of a compilation of documents as well as to what is stated in the affidavit in reply to urge that as a matter of fact recoveries have been made. Moreover, it was urged that the affidavit in reply states that although the CESTAT had in respect of certain proceedings remanded the proceedings way back on 16 October 2001 which is nearly 10 years ago, the Department is not in a position to state at present as to what is the status of those proceedings. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has urged that grant of rewards is not a matter of right. Moreover, the proceedings which were remanded back by the CESTAT do not appear to have attained finality and the Department would take necessary steps to expeditiously conclude the adjudication. 10. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
