TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her husband had lost his eyesight due to an accident. Once the deponent has accepted that reward at the interim stage was paid to Chandrakant and that the Petitioner has established that she is the legal heir of Chandrakant, then withholding the final reward is entirely arbitrary. Even keeping aside the above two statements made in the affidavit, considering the totality of the circumstances and that nothing is placed before us that there was some other Informer and not Chandrakant who received the interim reward in respect of the concerned case, it is found that the claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of identity. The policy under the Circular of 2015, postulates rewards for information. Clause 7.2, which postulates the time limit to sanction the final reward, emphasizes that it is desirable that immediately upon conclusion of the adjudication, the final reward be released as an intensive to improve compliance. Though there is no legal right to demand a reward, as stated in the policy, the rejection must not be arbitrary, and the approach should not be such that it discourages the Informers from coming forward. Ultimately, the objective of off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaken by the Informer, and the extent and nature of the help rendered by the Informer. Clause 5 deals with the quantum and ceiling of rewards. As per clause 5.1.1, the Informers are eligible to reward up to 20% of the net sale proceeds of the contraband seized. Clause 6 contemplates payment of advance/ interim reward. Under clause 6.1, advance/ interim reward may be paid to the Informers up to 50% of the total admissible reward immediately on seizure in respect of the gold/silver bullion, arms and ammunition, and explosives. The payment of the final reward is referred to under clause 7 of the Circular. The final reward is to be sanctioned and disbursed after the conclusion of adjudication/ appeal/ revision proceedings and closure of proceedings. Clause 7.2 incorporates the time limit to sanction the final reward, stating that as an incentive to improve compliance, it is desirable that the procedure should be followed to release the final reward immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings. As regards the identity of the Informer, additional information is to be kept as per clause 11.2 with a left thumb impression to reduce delay in disbursal of reward. Additional informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, which disposed of the same on 25 October 2011. 8. Meanwhile, on 9 April 1993 and thereafter in 1999, the Respondents disbursed an advance reward of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 2 lakhs, respectively, to the Informer. 9. The Petitioner s husband Chandrakant made a series of representations from 26 June 2006, 17 July 2006, 17 November 2006 and 28 March 2007 for release of final reward in respect of the information given on 21 March 1991. He also appealed to the Commissioner to do the needful at the earliest as he had lost his eye sight due to an accident in 1992. Chandrakant expired on 25 August 2010. 10. After the death of Chandrakant, the Petitioner, a widow, continued to send requests to release the final reward for her husband- Chandrakant in light of the policy. Requests were sent on 15 September 2010, 24 December 2010 and 29 September 2011. On 30 November 2011, the Joint Commissioner, R I, Mumbai, referred the request for final reward to the Joint Commissioner of Customs (P), Reward Cell. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Rewards) informed the Petitioner by communication dated 5 December 2011 that the proceedings filed by the Jewellers have been remanded back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow we turn to the case of the Respondents in the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents. It is for the first time in the reply filed on 10 June 2022 the Petitioner is made aware of the reasons for not releasing the final reward. In the reply affidavit, a reference is made to discussion in the committees, and doubt is expressed as to whether Petitioner's husband- Chandrakant was the Informer. A reference is made to the Reward Committee Meeting of 11 June 2014, wherein it is discussed that the Informer has expired and, therefore, it is necessary to verify whether Chandrakant was the Informer. After that, the Respondents have stated that the signature on the information note and the signature on the ration card and pan card provided by the Petitioner do not match. Then it refers that the representations made by the Informer on 26 June 2006, 17 November 2006, 15 June 2007 and 5 March 2010 were sent for signature verification, and Scientist B (Documents), CFSL, Pune, in his examination report dated 28 February 2018 has stated that it is not possible to express an opinion on the authorship. The gist of the reply is that it is not possible to conclude that it is the Petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handrakant s identity as the Informer. 18. Pertinently, in the affidavit in reply, Mr. Rajesh Sanan, Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in para 9 and 10 of the same while referring para 5 and 6, has stated as under : 9. With reference to paragraph No. 5, I state that an advance reward of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given on 23.02.1993 by the Collector of Customs (P) and the same was disbursed to Chandrakant Dhavre on 09.04.1993. 10. With reference to paragraph No.6, I state that an additional amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was sanctioned by the Commissioner of Customs (P) as the second stage reward on 16.08.1999 and paid to Chandrakant Dhavre on 20.08.1999 . Once the deponent has accepted that reward at the interim stage was paid to Chandrakant and that the Petitioner has established that she is the legal heir of Chandrakant, then withholding the final reward is entirely arbitrary. Even keeping aside the above two statements made in the affidavit, considering the totality of the circumstances and that nothing is placed before us that there was some other Informer and not Chandrakant who received the interim reward in respect of the concerned case, we find that the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
