TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectly 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. 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. The petitioners have not made out any case for grant of any relief in these Writ Petitions - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.Nos.30066 & 30094 of 2017, W.M.P.No.32637 & 32669 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar Sr., Counsel for Mr.R.Sivakumar For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, SPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon to raise all contentions appearing before the department in person or through authorised representative. Therefore, by applying the challenge to the summon has to necessarily fail. 9. One more decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in the case of Union of India Vss Rajnish Kumar, Tuli, in Special Leave Criminal Appeal No(s).30/2010. In the said case, the appeal arose out of the order passed by a Punjab and Haryana High Court, directing the concerned officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to examine and record the evidence of the respondent therein at their office at Ludhiana. A case was registered by the Ahamedabad Zonal Unit, DRI, on the allegation of misuse of advance licence scheme and summons were issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Honourable Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Dukhishiyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria reported in (1998) 1 SCC 52 and held that the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed the order without properly appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Bajoria (supra). Ul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent in the summons, dated 06.11.2017. This is sufficient to hold that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that while it may be true that summons cannot be quashed, but in the instant case, the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent to summon the petitioners. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ram Narain Bishwanth Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 285, and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore, 1995 (76) ELT 520, (Kar). It is submitted that the second respondent, who does not have jurisdiction to summons the petitioner should be prohibited from doing so by issuing a Writ of Mandamus. 6. The learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent would contend that the decisions relied on by the petitioner are distinguishable, since it related to authorities, who functioned under the Customs Act and DRI is an investigating agency having all India jurisdiction vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. In Ram Narain Bishwanth Ors.,(supra), goods were imported by the respondent therein, which was cleared at Paradip Port in the State of Orissa, the goods were then transported to Howrah in State of West Bengal where they were seized by the Customs Authorities on the ground that they had been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. The Department held that the goods were liable for confiscation, which was challenged before the CEGAT which held that the Customs Authorities in West Bengal, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the Customs Authorities at Paradip, State of Orissa to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the ground that the goods had been imported on fictitious licences and not for the customs authorities in West Bengal to do so. 11. In Devilog Systems India (supra), one of the questions referred for consideration was whether the notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Internal Audit Department were legal and valid. In the said case, the Department conceded that for the purposes of the Section 47 of the Act, the proper Officer would be the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench, Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual [vide State rep by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7651]- 14. It was argued that the notification No.17/2002-Cus.(NT), dated 07.03.2002, though confers all India jurisdiction for certain officers, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer; It is therefore clear that a Customs Officer would have all the possible power and more particularly described under Sec.108 of the Act to summon any person obviously to enquire as to whether any goods have been smuggled or not. If, therefore, any goods are brought in India, which enjoy the exemption from the payment of customs duty on certain conditions then, the Customs Officer will have all the powers to enquire as to whether the conditions, subject to which the said duty is exempted, have been followed or not and it is obvious that, in case of the breach of those conditions, those goods will be smuggled goods. We, therefore, do not see as to how a simple summons issued under Sec.108 of the Act could be termed to be a proceeding without jurisdiction, when it is the inherent power of the every Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to enquire into the matter of smuggling. 15. Thus, for all the above reasons, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
