9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, 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 recovered. The Petitioner addressed letters on 19 June 1999, 5 December 2000, 15 April 2003, 2 October 2004, 3 September 2005, 23 July 2008 and 14 May 2010 to which there was no reply either from the Additional Directors General of the DRI at Mumbai or at Ahmedabad. An Advocate's notice was addressed on 1 October 2010. These proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the release of a reward in the amount of 20% in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 16 April 2004. 3. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Assistant Director, DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. It has been stated therein that information was received by the DRI in its Zonal unit at Mumbai which indicated that Mr. Ashwin Kumar More of More Overseas, Calcutta had imported goods such as Polyethylene Granules, Mulberry Silk & Copper Cathodes, etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stead 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 affidavit in reply that in the case of Associated Industries the CESTAT had by an order dated 16 October 2001 remanded the proceedings in appeal. The affidavit records that the final status of the appeal is not known. 6. The Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) has formulated guidelines on 20 June 2001 regarding grant of rewards to informers and Government Servants. These guidelines were modified on 16 April 2004. Under the guidelines certain rewards upto 20% of the net sale proceeds of contraband goods seized and/or the amount of duty evaded plus the amount of fine or penalty levied/imposed and recovered can be granted. The ceilings are subject to periodical revision. Clause 5.1 of the Guidelines stipulates that a reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which, subject to the guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed as a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 constituted authority or committee shall not be reviewed or reopened. However, in most exceptional cases where DGRI, DGCEL, or the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that review of the final reward sanctioned by the competent authority is absolutely necessary to redress any grave injustice meted out to the informer/Govt. servant, the Government may review the final reward sanctioned on the specific recommendations of the Board. 7. We have adverted to the relevant clauses of the scheme for payment of rewards to informers or as the case may, to the Government servants. The basic principle which underlies the grant of a reward is that it is an ex-gratia and not a matter of right. This aspect has been emphasised in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). The Supreme Court while dealing with the guidelines formulated for gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents 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 Constitution, we are not inclined to grant the relief which is sought which is that the Respondents should be directed to pay to the Petitioner a reward representing 20% of the value of the recoveries made on the basis of the guidelines of 16 April 2004. The grant of a reward is not a matter of right. Whether a reward should be granted is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of the applicable guidelines. The considerations which have to be borne in mind by the competent authority to grant a reward include the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk undertaken, the extent and the nature of the help rendered by the informer, the difficulty in securing the information and other such factors. In that view of the matter, particularly since a reward is an ex-gratia, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 would not be justified in directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
