9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elease of the seized gold to the petitioners. Thus, at the outset, there are no merits in the case of petitioners. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with an observation that respondent authorities shall proceed with investigation and complete the same without being influenced by our observation in this order. - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA For the Petitioners : Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned counsel., For the Respondents : Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel. ORDER: (PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO) The petitioners pray for a mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seizing the re-melted Indian origin gold weighing Rs. 1.20 Cr. from the possession of petitioners 2 to 5 by recording the statements, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consider the retracted statements of the petitioners. While so, the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in a bus from Chennai to Guntur and took the gold into their custody and took them to Customs office at Vijayawada and obtained their statements on some computer printed documents without revealing the contents of the documents. Petitioners 2 and 3 studied X class and VI class respectively and they need not know the contents of their statements nor the officials informed the contents. No copies of the documents such as panchanama, and the statements recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and seizure report were handed over to petitioners 2 and 3. Thus, the petitioners 2 and 3 informed about the seizure of gold. The petitioners 4 and 5 also returned to Guntur and informed to petitioner No. 1 in similar manner stating that while they were coming when Chennai to Guntur in a bus, the Customs officials have intercepted them at Martur and seized the gold and took them to the Customs Office at Vijayawada and kept there till the night of 21.03.2023 and obtained their signatures on some computer printed documents, without informing the contents therein and without furnishing the copies. (e) The further case of petitioners is that due to ill-health of the petitioner No. 1, he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they reached Chennai in order to transport the gold. The respondents further contended that the 1st petitioner claims as if he purchased huge quantity i.e., 2 Kgs of gold from M/s. SRR Traders on credit basis. However, generally no trader will deliver the gold on credit basis since its rate changes consistently. This fact is under thorough investigation. The respondents on these contentions and other contentions and also on the ground that the investigation is pending, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard arguments of Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 5. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their arguments. Sri Thimma Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, while severely fulminating the seizure of the gold argued that the subject gold is of Indian origin and transported under valid invoice and therefore, the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 have no application and the respondents - officials have no jurisdiction or authority to seize the same and that they made an illegal seizure on concocted statements obtained by coercion from petitioners 2 to 5. In oppugnatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per the statement dated 31.05.2023 and 12.07.2023 of Kovvuri Ramakrishna, proprietor of M/s. SRR Traders, Chennai, no doubt he sold the gold of 100 gram bars of 20 numbers of MMTC-PAMP on credit basis to 1st petitioner. However, the gold seized from the petitioners 2 to 5 is of different shapes and sizes which throws a doubt about the petitioners case. The veracity of statement of K. Rama Krishna is also under scrutiny. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the investigation is under way with reference to the above suspicious circumstances and other related facts. She thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. Point: We have cogitated upon the respective arguments of both the counsel. In this case, admittedly, on 20.03.2023, the respondent officials have intercepted the petitioners 2 3 near Sullurput while they were travelling in a bus from Chennai to Guntur and enquired them at Customs Office, Vijayawada and obtained their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and seized the gold. Similarly, the customs officials also intercepted petitioners 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable to any requisition for attendance under this section. (4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (a) As can be seen, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, concerned Gazetted Officer of the customs shall have the power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary (i) either to give evidence or (ii) to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act. The persons so summoned should be bound to attend either in person or by an authorized agent and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required. This Section further lays down that the inquiry under Section 108 shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the inquiry under Section 108 cannot be said to be an interrogation of an accused. In Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 522= MANU/SC/0127/1996. Hon ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of 1st petitioner is that he kept the original invoices with him and he remained at Chennai on account of his works. Even assuming it to be true, he is expected to give copies of invoices to petitioners 2 to 5 for safe transportation of the gold to Guntur. Under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, when goods are transported, proper record like way bills, invoice, purchase bills etc. should be made readily available for inspection of concerned authorities. Non-furnishing of copies of the invoices to the petitioners 2 to 5 creates doubt in the conduct of 1st petitioner. (c) Thirdly, on knowing about the seizure of gold on 22.03.2023, the 1st petitioner in normal course was expected to produce original invoices before the respondent authorities and submit an application for release of rich host of gold seized. However, curiously the 1st petitioner remained silent for about two weeks and made such an application belatedly, only on 08.04.2023 which costs a serious doubt about his conduct. Of course it is his contention that he was suffering with Typhoid at the relevant time and doctor advised him to take rest for about one week. Even such fact is true, still ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
