9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r examining the same, it may kindly be quashed and set aside." 2. They are sought in the following facts and circumstances. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Infinity Trading Company. The petitioner states that he is the authorized signatory and also authorized to deal with the day-to-day affairs of certain firms whose names are listed in paragraph 1 of the petition. 3. The three firms are also proprietary concerns and are engaged in the business of export of imitation jewellery. The customers located at several places abroad place the orders and that is how the exports have been made. The petitioner says that these exports have been made after complying with the Customs Act, 1962. After setting out the complete procedure for such export in the petition, what has been urged in the writ petition itself is that wherever exports are made under any export incentive scheme and the benefit of duty drawback is claimed, the consignments are subjected to examination as per the Rules fixed by the department. The norms are also referred in paragraph 4.4, including appraisal of the consignment by the officers. The volume of exports and the claim of duty drawback would be decided, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance in the said account should not be permitted to be withdrawn. Thus, the petitioner claims that the bank accounts were frozen and attached. The bank had no option, but to comply with the demands of the respondents. That is how the petitioner claims that to show his bona fides he deposited a sum of Rs. 16,62,792.18 which was available in balance in the account of the petitioner. Fearing that the petitioner's livelihood would be jeopardized that he claims to have made this payment and recorded this fact by a letter at Annexure-D. 7. Again, on 13th October, 2015, the petitioner claimed that because of the freezing of the account, his business is adversely affected. His cheques would be dishonoured. The petitioner claims that he has been explaining to the respondents that further compliance with the law and given that the respondents have a power to investigate that does not mean that the bank account should be frozen and endlessly. The petitioner was pressurized to make further payments and that is how the petitioner, relying upon certain judgments, pointed out by a letter of 28th January, 2016, followed by another one dated 15th February, 2016, that the bank account be rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a power and once there is a power this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed upon a voluntary payment or deposit of Rs. 25,48,572/-. Reliance is also placed upon the affidavit-in-reply to submit that the petitioner does not respond to any summonses and that is why the action ultimately deserves to be upheld. 12. With the assistance of both counsel, we have perused the petition and the annexures thereto. Pertinently, the petitioner's letter and which has been addressed on 8th September, 2015, acknowledging receipt of a summons dated 1st September, 2015, is not disputed. The petitioner has explained in this letter that the summons was received only on 5th September, 2015, and that is why he will not be able to appear on 9th September, 2015, due to prior engagements. The petitioner prayed for a fresh date of appearance. He also requested that the nature of documents, if any, required be kindly intimated so that the same can be produced before the Special Investigating Officer. 13. Then, the petitioner does not dispute that on 11th September, 2015, he addressed a letter to the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Limited and informed that his acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter is requested. 7. Action with reference to the above should be intimated to this office on the above mentioned fax number. SD/- (VARSHA D NIMBALKAR) DEPUTY DIRECTOR DRI, MZU, MUMBAI." 15. If this letter is addressed on 11th September, 2015 and the petitioner is applying from 21st September, 2015, that his bank account be released and the freeze order be withdrawn, then, we do not see how Mr. Jetly can justify the action impugned in the writ petition. It is common ground that when such is the letter addressed to the bank and to the petitioner alleging fraud and terming all exports as bogus so as to avail of a duty drawback, then, a one sided or unilateral version of the Revenue is not determinative or conclusive. It is not a case of an established and proved fraud but an alleged fraud. The fact that the petitioner has admitted that there was some liability but the circumstances in which he has paid the sum of Rs. 16,62,794.18 has been duly explained by him. He terms the payment as ad-hoc and when he states that this is only to cooperate in the investigation that the petitioner has made this payment, then, we do not find any justification for the continued actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e modus operandi of illegally obtaining the benefit of a drawback by showing inflated FOB value. I say that the data/information gathered was confirmed by Shri Parvez Mohammed Sharif Ansari, the person who was involved in issuing the bogus purchase bills to exporters, in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the said Act. I say that this fact has been admitted by the Petitioner albeit differently in para 4.9 of the petition. I say that the Petitioner has accepted that he has obtained bogus purchase bills from Shri Parvez Mohammed Sharif Ansari. I say that initial investigations have revealed that the Petitioner has fraudulently availed Duty Drawback amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only) and availed of duty scrips amounting to Rs. 74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Only)." 18. We have found from a reading of the above paragraph that the petitioner is attributed a clear admission of the guilt. Once there is an admission of guilt, according to the Revenue, then, it is enough justification for their act is the submission of Mr. Jetly. Far from reading any admission of guilt, what we do in order to completely reject the submissions of Mr. Jetly is a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
