Court directs petitioners to cooperate with investigation, prohibits coercion, allows counsel presence. Emphasizes fairness and procedural compliance.

The Court directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation by appearing daily before DRI officials, prohibited coercive actions against them, and allowed their counsel to be present during interrogation at a visible distance. The respondents were instructed to provide information on duty liability. A notice of motion was issued, emphasizing cooperation and the role of counsel. The judgment aimed to balance investigative needs with petitioners' rights, ensuring fair treatment and procedural compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus seeking compliance with due procedure and release of seized goods.
2. Permission for counsel to be present during interrogation.
3. Coercive steps against petitioners.
4. Duty liability of petitioners on imported goods.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to comply with the due procedure established by law and to allow provisional release of imported cigarettes seized in Ludhiana and Delhi upon payment of differential duty. Additionally, the petitioners requested permission for their counsel to be present during interrogation. The counsel for the petitioners assured that the petitioners would cooperate with the investigation and proposed daily appearances before DRI officials between 11 AM to 5 PM. The Court reviewed orders from various High Courts and the Supreme Court related to similar cases.

The Court, after considering the allegations against the petitioners and the orders from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, directed the petitioners to join the investigation by appearing before the DRI officials daily from a specified date. The respondents were instructed not to take coercive actions against the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners' counsel was allowed to be present at a visible but not audible distance during the interrogation. A DRI official was also directed to provide information about the duty liability of the petitioners concerning the three Bills of Entry in question.

A notice of motion was issued to the respondents returnable by a specific date, along with Dasti process. The Court emphasized the importance of the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation process and the role of their counsel during this period. The order was to be shared with the petitioners' counsel through Dasti, attested under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. The judgment aimed to balance the investigative needs with the rights and concerns of the petitioners, ensuring fair treatment and procedural compliance throughout the process.

---