2019 (9) TMI 139 - HC - Customs

High Court Resolves Jurisdictional Challenge in DRI Case, Emphasizes Cooperation

Gaurav Kirpal and another Versus Union of India and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by petitioners regarding a complaint and summoning order issued by the DRI ... Non-appearance in proceedings under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Section 174 and 175 of IPC - jurisdiction of officers working in the DRI at various levels - HELD THAT:- During the pendency of the present writ petition, the investigations have been transferred to the DRI Zonal Office, Ludhiana where the unit of the private company/petitioner no. 2 is situated and engaged in its business. It is submitted that in view of the conceded cooperation by the officers of the petitioner company in the pending investigations, the impugned complaint and summoning orders are required to be set aside as concededly the documents were furnished before the officials at Ahmedabad, however, it was the non-presence of the director which had actuated the initiation of the complaint. The DRI had sought time to seek instructions with regard to withdrawing of the said complaint at Ahmedabad, the proceedings of which are not warranted in view of the subsequent developments - Counsel for the DRI states that investigations have been transferred to Ludhiana and he further undertakes to get the aforesaid complaint at Ahmedabad withdrawn by moving appropriate application within next one month, thus, it is conceded that no further adjudication is required in the present writ petition. Petition disposed off. Issues: Jurisdictional challenge, Quashing of complaint and summoning order, Cooperation in investigationIn this judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioners, including a company engaged in the export of readymade garments, challenged a complaint and summoning order issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Ahmedabad Zone for non-cooperation during an investigation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order primarily on the grounds of jurisdiction and a notification extending the jurisdiction of DRI officers nationwide. During the hearing, it was revealed that the investigations had been transferred to the DRI Zonal Office in Ludhiana, where the petitioner company was located, and cooperation was being extended. The petitioners argued that since documents were provided in Ahmedabad but the director was absent, the complaint was unjustified. The DRI, acknowledging the transfer of investigations and cooperation, agreed to withdraw the complaint in Ahmedabad, rendering further adjudication unnecessary. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, binding the respondents to their commitment to withdraw the complaint.This judgment addresses the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioners regarding the complaint and summoning order issued by the DRI Ahmedabad Zone. The petitioners contended that the jurisdiction of the DRI officers was extended nationwide by a notification, questioning the validity of the actions taken in Ahmedabad. However, with the transfer of investigations to Ludhiana where the petitioner company operated and cooperated, the issue of jurisdiction became less significant, leading to the agreement to withdraw the complaint in Ahmedabad. The court's decision to dispose of the petition reflects the resolution of the jurisdictional challenge in light of the changed circumstances and the cooperation extended during the investigation.Another key issue in this judgment was the petitioners' request for quashing the complaint and summoning order based on the lack of cooperation during the investigation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that while documents were provided in Ahmedabad, the absence of the director triggered the complaint, which they deemed unjustified given the subsequent cooperation and transfer of investigations to Ludhiana. The court considered the petitioners' argument in conjunction with the DRI's acknowledgment of the improved cooperation and decision to withdraw the complaint in Ahmedabad, ultimately leading to the disposal of the petition. This issue highlights the importance of cooperation during investigations and the impact it can have on the legal proceedings initiated based on non-cooperation.The judgment also delves into the aspect of cooperation in the investigation process. The petitioners emphasized that despite providing documents in Ahmedabad, the absence of the director led to the complaint, which they viewed as unwarranted given the overall cooperation extended during the investigation. The DRI, recognizing the cooperation and the transfer of investigations to Ludhiana, agreed to withdraw the complaint in Ahmedabad, aligning with the petitioners' stance. This focus on cooperation underscores its significance in legal proceedings and how improved cooperation can influence the resolution of disputes and complaints arising during investigations. The court's acknowledgment of the cooperation and subsequent withdrawal of the complaint highlights the importance of active participation and collaboration in investigative processes to avoid unnecessary legal actions and challenges.