TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Code') for alleged violations of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 (in short the said Act). 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the petitioner during the period from June 2002 to Jan 2003 exported certain consignments covered under 8 shipping bills wherein the shipping bills covered under serial number 1-4 were made to Dubai from Bombay in Dollar value which were assessed by the Customs authorities and thereafter the drawback amount @ 12.25% was credited into the account of the petitioner and the remaining 4 consignments were exported under Repayment of State Credit Scheme (popularly known as the Rupee-Rubal Agreement) for which also the drawback back amount had been credited into the account of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly withdrew a sum of Rs. 32, 75,000/- but before the remaining amount of Rs. 36, 87, 493/- could be withdrawn by the petitioner, the respondent/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'DRI') authorities freezed the said account of the petitioner in 2003. On two occasions, the petitioner's statement was recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he shall join the investigation and appear before the officer concerned of DRI. The DRI was directed to produce relevant material in a sealed cover which was so produced. 5. The learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case pertained to 2003 and therefore arrest in 2008 is unwarranted and also that the respondent/DRI itself had conceded before the sessions court, Mumbai that the petitioner is not required to be arrested. It was also the petitioner's case that the DRI, Delhi had no jurisdiction since the matter relates to Mumbai and no cause of action has arisen in Delhi for DRI, Delhi to have jurisdiction. It is submitted that that the alleged over valuation in respect of first eight shipments is belated and is not substantiated with any evidence. In regard to the diversion of remaining four shipments to Dubai, the petitioner's plea is that the respondent has not contented that such goods were not exported therefore once such goods were exported and crossed the territorial waters of India, the petitioner became entitled to the incentive by way of duty drawback. Reliance was placed on the cases of Terai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27-08-2007 in Crl. Appeal No. 1138/2007; Joint Commissioner of Custom, Punjab v. Kulbhushan Goyal Crl. M.P. 10436/06 decided on 31/10/2006; Sangit Krishna Kumar Aggrwal v. UOI; Crl. Appl.No. 272/2007 decided on 06-02-2007. 9. The petitioner was stated to have already joined investigation as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 04-02-2008 and further undertook to join the investigation and did not wish to realize the remaining amount of Rs. 36, 87, 493/- lying with DRI pending the adjudication proceedings. 10. On the other hand, it is the case of DRI that the investigations conducted so far reveal that the petitioner has availed of the drawback amounting to Rs. 68,87,513/- (export value of approx. Rs. 5.74 crores) and fraudulently remitted Rs. 3 crores from RBI against ostensible exports to Russia under the Indo-Russia Rupee Rouble Agreement but the goods never reached Russia which is in violation of the said Agreement and provisions of the Exim Policy and the Customs Act. To substantiate its case, the attention of this court was brought to the evidence collected (marked as Annexure 'A' brought in sealed cover) which indicated that the Russian con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - 2005 (1) JCC 433 and Lalit Goel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi , B.A.No. 2102/2007 decided on 02-11-2007. it is the case of the respondent that the judgment of Avinash Bhosle(supra) would not be applicable since the matter is sub-judice on account of the fact that the Government has filed a review against the said order. The respondent has also made an attempt to distinguish the case of Terai Overseas (supra) and Sun Industries case (Supra) with the present one wherein it is stated that the facts of the present case are different from the cases mentioned aforesaid and thus, the ratio of both the cases cannot be applied to the present case. 14. I have given deep thought to the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In fact, Mr. Deepankar Aron, Joint Director, DRI, ably assisted learned ASG and did explain before the Court the suspicion of the Department about the nature of transaction and the requirement of custodial interrogation very succinctly. 15. The first aspect to be taken note of is that the transaction relates to the period of June, 2002 to January, 2003. The matter has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
