9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treasury of the Government. It is contended by the Petitioner that when a person acts as an informer, he risks his security and safety, which ultimately enables the Respondent Department to garner revenue because of the disclosure of the illegal activities which are being committed by the importers. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents are duty bound to act on the scheme / policy framed for rewarding such an informer. That the Petitioner gave information to the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Commissioner of Customs (I), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad in July 2010 about specific goods which were imported by Bill of Lading No.859498700 and IGM No.24234/407. Based on the information provided by the Petitioner the Customs officials conducted raids and seized the goods. 3. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the investigation into the said case culminated into issuance of a show cause notice by the Respondent No.5 to the said importers and after adjudication of the proceedings, by an order dated 31st March, 2011 the said goods were confiscated and penalty was imposed on the importers. The Respondents subsequently paid an advance reward amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said mentioned alert was issued. It has been further stated that the department on seizure of the goods, paid Rs. 5 lacs to the Petitioner as advance reward. That, as provided in the scheme, the matter was considered by the Reward Committee on 28th June, 2012. Though the Reward Committee was not in favour of further reward, but the matter was left open because Directorate of Vigilance was conducting enquiry. Since that investigation is over, the Reward Committee will be convened for considering the final reward to the informer or otherwise. It is further stated that the contention of the Petitioner that he is entitled to balance reward of Rs. 48 lacs is totally misplaced as the Petitioner cannot claim any reward as a matter of right. It is further stated that, paragraph 5 of the "Reward Scheme", clearly provides that the reward is purely ex gratia payment which may be granted on absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant reward and no party can claim the reward as a matter of right. The Reward Committee considers all aspects of reward before granting reward. It is therefore prayed that the present Petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. Brijesh Pathak, learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the Respondents relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) and he placed reliance on paragraph 12 of the said judgment. It is to be noted here that the Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with the scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated 30th March, 1985, on the premise of the facts that after the information was provided by the respondents therein, except for a single amount of Rs. 2 lacs towards redemption fine no other amount either by way of custom duty, penalty or redemption fine has been realized by the Department. The imported machinery could not be confiscated or auctioned as the same had been hypothecated to financial institutions from whom the importers had taken loan. In view of the amended policy, the entitlement of the respondent, if any, could be a small amount as the Department had been able to realize only Rs. 2 lacs. That was not a case where some large scale smuggling operations had been brought to light or the identity of some hard co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled for the balance of the reward amount. We are at pains to note that though a specific stand was taken in the affidavit that since January 2010 the Respondent Department was in receipt of the specific information, it is not disclosed that what prevented them from acting on the said information swiftly. In our considered opinion, the officers who were in receipt of the said information but failed to act upon it, is a matter of serious concern and also a matter of investigation for the higher authorities. The affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in unequivocal terms admits that the Petitioner provided information on 19th July, 2010 about imports of consumer goods by concealing them in five containers and based upon the same, action was taken against the said containers. It is worth to note here that from January 2010 to July 2010 the officers of the Respondent authorities did not act upon so called or alleged information which was already with them. However, after the receipt of information on 19th July, 2010 from the Petitioner, they conducted the raids in the matter. We are of the opinion that, the Customs officers at this stage cannot be allowed to take a spacious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if the payment of reward is not made to the informers within a stipulated period and as per the guidelines prescribed by the reward policy dated 16th April, 2004, the informers will not come forward with information. 10. The Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Shri B.R. Gavai, J.) was a member, while dealing with a similar situation in PIL No.99 of 2014 (Lalan Kishor Singh v. State of Maharashtra and another), in its judgment dated 9th March, 2015 at paragraph No.5 has observed thus : "Only after the petitioner gave an information to the authorities of the Sales Tax Department and only after the Sales Tax Authorities carried out the raid, the said Company has filed the returns. Had the petitioner not given the information and had the raid not been carried out by the Sales Tax Department, evasion of the taxes by the said Company would have gone unnoticed and the tax payable by the said Company would have been lost. We find that the stand taken by the respondent-Department is against its own interest. Promising someone to bring forth the tax evasion with an allurement that he would get certain reward and thereafter retracting on a hyper-technical ground and trying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
