TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation given to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gaur, Superintendent of Customs (CIU) and subsequently in the information report dated 19th July, 2010. The show cause notice also makes specific reference that on investigation it is found that the said containers have been imported on Bill of Lading No.859498700 showing the goods as 'Welded Mesh” and under its garb consumer items were imported thereby causing substantial and huge loss of revenue to the Government of India. We are of the opinion that, the Customs officers at this stage cannot be allowed to take a spacious plea that they were already in receipt of the information since January 2010 and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for further reward amount. It is to be noted here that on the basis of the specific information provided by the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities were able to recover an amount of ₹ 2,65,26,500/- by auctioning the confiscated goods. According to us and in our considered opinion, the stand taken by the Respondent authorities appears to be clearly an afterthought, taken only with a view to deprive the informer / Petitioner from his legitimate dues / payments towards his reward as per the rew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents and their sub-ordinate officers to forthwith release the balance amount of reward due and payable to the Petitioner and for declaration that the actions on the part of the Respondents by not disbursing / paying the balance amount of reward to the Petitioner by gross abuse of the powers conferred upon them as, illegal, without justification, null and void and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The Petitioner is an informant of the Customs Department and provides the information to the Respondents which has enabled the Respondent Department to collect huge amount of revenue in the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found to be stuffed behind few rows of 'Welded Mesh . It is further stated that the Respondent Department investigated the matter and during investigation, it was found that due to alert, the containers which landed in February 2010 and which were initially destined to Delhi, were sought to be diverted to Colombo / Jebel Ali by changing the name of shipper / consignee but could not succeed. That during investigation, it was noticed that though the Bill of Lading pertaining to impugned goods, the consignee was M/s. Limra Traders of Nalasopara (W), Thane, yet notified party was M/s. Track Exports India Pvt. Ltd. of New Delhi in whose name the said mentioned alert was issued. It has been further stated that the department on seizure of the goods, paid ₹ 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 otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the Petitioner in view of the specific information provided by the Petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents per contra supported the action of the Respondents by placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim the alleged balance amount of reward as a matter of right. He further submitted that paragraph 5 of the said reward policy dated 16th April, 2004 is very clear, which says that the reward is purely an exgratia payment which, subject to guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perintendent of Customs (CIU) and subsequently in the information report dated 19th July, 2010. The show cause notice also makes specific reference that on investigation it is found that the said containers have been imported on Bill of Lading No.859498700 showing the goods as 'Welded Mesh and under its garb consumer items were imported thereby causing substantial and huge loss of revenue to the Government of India. On this background, we fail to appreciate the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in his affidavit that they were already in receipt of information some time in January 2010 and they were acting upon the said information and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and /or mercy of the Respondents and/or the members of the Reward Committee. It is to be noted here that the Government of India has framed the reward policy with a view to follow the same by all the concerned in its proper spirit and we are of the opinion that, the Respondents cannot be allowed to frustrate the same by giving the informer only an assurance of reward as mentioned in the schedule. It is further to be noted that the guidelines prescribed under the reward policy dated 16th April, 2004 are framed by Government of India to follow the same by the officers of the Respondents and not to violate it at the whims and fancies of the Respondents as stated above. It may also to be noted here that 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
