9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t make it mandatory for investigation to be transferred to a different location. It is for the investigating authority to take a decision in the matter and it is not for the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue such a direction in this regard, especially, when the factual matrix appears to be that the petitioner was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the respondents 1 and 2 - the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted - petition dismissed. - W.P.No.3525 of 2018 & W.M.P. No.4305 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Anishkumar For the Respondents : Mr. V. Sundareswaran Mr.S.R.Sundar ORDER Heard Mr.R.Anishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Sundareswara, learned Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner is a proprietor of an Advertising Firm under the name and style of M/s.Meena Advertisers . In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons dated 02.01.2018 issued by the 2nd re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.165 (S.C.) held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition. Similar issue was considered in W.P.Nos.30066 30094 of 2017, dated 07.01.2017 and the writ petitions challenging the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was dismissed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- 9. Though the petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to prohibit the second respondent from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the summons dated 06.11.2017, it is an indirect challenge to the summons. The petitioner having been unsuccessful in its earlier attempt, cannot now maintain these Writ Petitions and indirectly challenged the summons issued by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from approaching this Court for an identical relief for the second time. Nevertheless, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent and this challenge is based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer/Commissionerate was subject matter of consideration for which purpose, the Port of import was determined as the jurisdictional Commissionerate. In the instant case, the exercise done by the second respondent is investigation and it does not pertain to a single consignment imported by the petitioners. By the summons, dated 06.11.2017, the petitioners have been called upon to produce documents pertaining to the imports done for the period from 2013-14 to 2016-17. Infact, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition specifically directed that the summons should set out reasons for which the petitioner is being summoned. This has been explicitly stated with summons dated 06.11.2017. Therefore, it is not a singular transaction, which is being investigated, but past transaction as well. This has been held to be permissible in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea), vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2009 (240) ELT 166 (Mad), wherein it was held that past conduct of the importer would assume significance in the course of investigation and there is power to investigate into past cases. 13. In Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (Fera) vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted by the other side. Even otherwise, there is no reason for us not to accept the statement made by the learned senior counsel at the Bar that all such officers, holding the post of Senior Intelligent Officer, have been given the status of the Gazetted officer. Hence that question is concluded against the appellants. 10. A glance at Sec.108 of the Customs Act, under which the summons is given, would suggest that it is a power given to any Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to summon any person during any enquiry which the officer would make in connection with the smuggling of any goods. A summons can be for the production of the documents or those in possession or under the control of the persons summoned and such a summoned person is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined by the summoning officer. These powers are given obviously with an idea to check the smuggling. The definition of 'smuggling' is to be found in Sec.2(39) of the Act, which is as under: smuggling in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Sec.111 or section 113 When Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
