TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 and the department claims to have obtained the information in April 2014 and in relation to certain transactions by the courier mode. Thus the petitioner has occasion of obtaining these details of the information collected and generated by the department from his own sources and encashing upon the same. The petitioner is accused of having relied on this very piece of information available with the department but without its details and he commenced correspondence in January 2015. He commenced correspondence about those cases which were already under the scanner of the department. The department had an in-house investigation mechanism and which it resorted to. It did not rely on the information made available by the petitioner. The petitioner's emails did not gave the details as were necessary and that is why the respondents have raised a dispute on the petitioner's right or entitlement to reward. Even the initial entitlement or an advance reward is disputed and that was not granted. The petitioner relies upon his e-mails but conveniently omits to give details of how the proceedings ended. The petitioner claims that it was his information which led to the investigations but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty, how this major tax evader in the garb of obtaining such concessions has indulged in smuggling and anti national activities. It was assisted by some other courier companies. After discussion with the petitioner, Mr. Dash told him to send the gist of information developed by him on his whatsapp messenger on his specific mobile number as it was not possible to meet the petitioner in person at the relevant time. The petitioner claims to have forwarded this information on 21st January 2015 and also supplementary information on the same day but after a lapse of about 20 minutes of the first whatsapp message. The petitioner then obtained valuable and specific details. The same were forwarded in the hope that action would be taken against this major tax defaulter and reward would be forwarded to the petitioner. 4] In paragraph 2(d) of the petition, the petitioner provides the details of the registration obtained by M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. as a courier company and involved in the business of clearance of express import and export cargo in courier mode. That facility was misused for clearance of imported goods under Form IV which is meant for the bonafide gifts to individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and raised the demand on the said M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. in the sum of ₹ 6 Crores. 6] Annexure 'A' to the petition is a copy of these messages and which are followed up by further messages for about one year, namely, between 23rd January 2015 to 25th January 2016. 7] The petitioner says that he was getting anxious in the hope of getting the reward from the department. The petitioner was pressing for an early action against M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.. That is how the petitioner was following up the matter for about an year and more. The petitioner says that his information was found to be crucial and reliable else the department officials would not have engaged him or continued to entertain him. All this gives a hope to the petitioner that the reward was indeed due and payable. 8] The petitioner relies upon and very heavily on the paragraphs 2(p), (q) and (r) to this petition. These paragraphs read as under: p. Petitioner says that when Petitioner asked Mr.Arjun Raghavendra about the progress of the case of M/s.ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. upon his information and requested him to do the formalities in filing DRI-I (the information report and detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lac expensive re-furbished mobile phones (which is restricted item for import) and around 30,000 I-pads on e-bay platform which is easily verifiable by the agency like DRI. These two items show the volumes being transacted and accordingly the duty demand being made is far less and it appears that the department has forgotten some points to be investigated in the matter the reasons best known to them. Petitioner says that the file of M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. may be properly investigated as Petitioner expects the duty evaded to be far more and it would help the department to generate more Revenue for the Government and consequently bigger rewards for Petitioner. 9] On the basis of the above assertions, the petitioner says that his trust and faith in the departmental officials was belied by the change in stand and approach towards him. He was shocked and surprised to receive a letter dated 6th January 2016 in reply to his letter of 15th December 2015 wherein the respondents stated that no case of reward to the petitioner is made out. The petitioner was shocked because the three officials Mr. Dash, Mr. Raghavendra and Mr. Sushil Chandra are guilty of breach of trust. 10] Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rier clearances. The respondent no. 3 had met the petitioner close to three times in the office of the DRI. The petitioner claimed clandestine removal of consignments and which are the goods imported by M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.. These activities were taking place in the night at the Express Terminal in Mumbai which functions round the clock. Many of the consignments were not manifested. The 3rd respondent considered this information to be too vague. He had worked previously at this terminal and it appeared prima facie that large scale smuggling of such consignments without being manifested in the Import General Manifest (IGM) from Express Terminal, Mumbai was not feasible. The petitioner insisted that there was considerable clandestine removal of unmanifested consignments or manifested consignments were being removed without payment of duty. 16] The 3rd respondent was not happy and satisfied with the claim of the petitioner and desired that he should give further details in the form of IGMs of consignments under which the goods were claimed to be cleared without payment of duty. The petitioner provided some details to the 3rd respondent but on scrutiny of these IGMs, details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary action. This information was received by an agency of the Government of India without any claim of reward and long before the petitioner could contact the revenue officials and person named by him. Thus, the petitioner could not be considered for reward. 19] Then it is stated that DRI as an intelligence agency generally encourages informers to provide credible, specific and actionable intelligence. However, there is always certain information available with the DRI which does not as a matter of policy share that information. No information is acted upon unless it is scrutinized and verified for its credibility and accuracy. Thus each case has to be evaluated in the backdrop of its particular facts and circumstances. Therefore the petitioner may have continued to record the information in relation to which the department was working and gathering details, but if shared, it is not only impermissible but exposing the officers whose identity is revealed for further action. Such officers can be then departmentally prosecuted. They are also cautioned that they should not share their personal details with the informers much less giving their mobile numbers and e-mail contacts as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice and is thus the foundation for issuance of the same. If the foundation of the allegations in the show cause notice is this information provided by the petitioner then he is legitimately and rightly entitled to the reward is thus the main plank of his arguments. 23] We find that further details about the airway bills etc. are provided by the petitioner in the affidavit in rejoinder and particularly from pages 123 to 125 of the paper book. 24] Thus the petitioner has been denied the reward and it is alleged that such sources like the petitioner are contacted or continued to be engaged but the trust and faith reposed by the said informant in the department officials is subsequently betrayed. The affidavit in rejoinder is full of the petitioner's assertions and which have been noted above. 25] The petitioner's case goes as far as alleging that he is informer of the Department and based on his information more than 100 cases approximately have been investigated. Once the petitioner started making inquiries and gave reliable information, the respondent no. 2 demanded ₹ 6 crores approximately and recovered ₹ 10.32 crores from M/s. ICC Worldwide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that the impugned communication, copy of which is at page 81 of the paper book, is unreasoned and defeats the principles of natural justice. It is nothing but a non speaking order. The scheme of reward postulates that each case of this nature is forwarded to a duly constituted committee or such body of high ranking officials who apply their mind to the applications seeking reward and duly consider it. This is an encouragement provided to citizens and they should not be therefore compelled to institute writ petitions. 31] Mr. Desai has heavily relied upon the show cause notice dated 22nd July 2016 issued under section 28 read with 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. He submits that every single paragraph of this show cause notice and the allegations is based on the information provided by the petitioner. There is nothing like an in-house search or intelligence based on which the show cause notice is issued. 32] Then Mr. Desai relies upon a circular dated 20th June 2001 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. It is stated that reward guidelines state that rewards to Informer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which any action is taken against the defaulter or evader, then, the department's assessment or judgment of this nature is not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. For all these reasons, he would submit that the petition be dismissed. 35] After a careful perusal of the above materials, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for reward has been rightly negatived. Firstly, the petitioner establishes contact with Mr. P. K. Dash. What is apparent from page 38 onwards is that the petitioner seems to have established contact with him and acquaintances grew into a familiarity which by its nature is surprising. This Mr. P. K. Dash is supposed to have been treating the petitioner like a friend. He went on engaging him. Then on 21st January 2015, the petitioner gave a gist of information about misuse of courier facilities by courier companies M/s. ICC Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.. We have already referred to this gist in the foregoing paragraphs. Thereafter another message is forwarded by him and within a short span of time, following the earlier one. Then, Mr. Dash is contacted by the petitioner on a Sunday morning and when the petitioner says that it is alway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly says that do not make any clearance. This goes on in the entire month of January 2015 and February 2015 and with reference to Mr. Arjun Raghavendra's name in this whatsapp messages that the petitioner is supposed to have provided some details. On 5th February 2015 he says that he will provide more as and when he gets. In one such conversation the petitioner wrongly refers to Mr. Arjun Raghavendra as Mr. Arvindji Raghavendra. We do not know who is this Mr. Arvindji Raghavendra and how his name surfaces in this whatsapp wherein in prior and subsequent whatsapp the petitioner has never made any mistake. These whatsapp messages go on and on and what the petitioner claims as vital information is then relied upon. The petitioner says that his confirmation of the e-Bay order and details of which were forwarded from page 52 would reveal that the petitioner posed as a customer and shopping on eBay. He posed and projected himself to be interested in obtaining the products through e-route / e-Bays mode. That is how he is supposed to have informed even the bankers and officials and even alerted them about the nature of the transaction through this mode, namely, courier mode. These are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of this nature. He knows that the investigations were on. He knew that the investigations resulted in booking the concerned tax evader but at a later date. The petitioner complained to the Prime Minister's office on the impugned communication stating that he is a professional informer. He has been betrayed by the officials of the DRI. They took, understood and developed the information from him and booked a case successfully and are now denying the petitioner the reward. He has evidence to prove his claim. This assertion of the petitioner follows though he says that in terms of guidelines prescribed by the Board for grant of reward to the informers no case was made out for reward by the claimant. The decision was already taken and communicated to him. The petitioner thus knows the outcome of his complaint but insists that being a professional informer he should have been treated with the requisite respect and regard for his efforts. He says that his case was closed without even a hearing. He pursued his grievance again and in great hope but his request was refused in a one sided bureaucratic way. He is dissatisfied with the manner in which the grievance is looked into. He had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or their associates etc, the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/ racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. Then paragraph 6 dealing with payment of advance / interim reward follows and in which the following stipulations are material : 6.1 Advance/Interim reward may be paid to informers and Government servants up to 50% of the total admissible reward immediately on seizure in respect of the following categories of goods, namely : (a) gold/silver bullion; (b) arms and ammunition, explosives; and (c) opium and other narcotic drugs. 6.3 In all other cases, including Customs appraising cases, cases of town seizures and Central Excise duty evasion cases, normally, no adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The department had an in-house investigation mechanism and which it resorted to. It did not rely on the information made available by the petitioner. The petitioner's emails did not gave the details as were necessary and that is why the respondents have raised a dispute on the petitioner's right or entitlement to reward. 42] We do not think that such matters should be probed in our writ jurisdiction for that would convert this jurisdiction into one conferred with all the powers to enquire into, investigate and try such claims and probe the specific materials which are obtained by the department. The secrecy and confidentiality maintained would then have to be compromised in proceedings before us. These details would have to be revealed to the parties like the petitioner and based on the petitioner's assertions, liberty to controvert them either by examining the maker or the author of these statements or the documents would have to be provided or an opportunity to the petitioner to step into the box and assert his own claim by producing his own documents would have to be afforded followed by other witnesses. Equal opportunities would have to be afforded to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
