2021 (3) TMI 893 - HC - Customs

Court affirms travel order with conditions; dismisses extradition concerns; directs DRI for visa renewal

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Versus KIM DONG YEOL

The court upheld the order allowing the respondent to travel abroad, subject to conditions such as surrendering the passport upon return and not seeking ... Permission to travel abroad - On behalf of the DRI, it is submitted that there is an apprehension that the applicant would not return to India - HELD THAT:- It becomes apparent that the requested party in terms of the treaty of extradition between the Republic of India and Republic of Korea dated 05.10.2004 would be bound to extradite the person who has allegedly committed the offences qua taxation, custom duty, foreign exchange, control or other revenue matters except for in accordance with the provision of Articles 3 & 4 of the said treaty. It becomes apparent thus in terms of the Extradition Treaty even if a Korean citizen is permitted to travel abroad, he can be extradited back to this country with it also having been observed vide order dated 20.11.2020 that the in the circumstances, the apprehension that had been expressed on behalf of the DRI could not be said to be well founded. In as much as, a submission had been made on behalf of the respondent that he has a valid VISA to return to this country even if the impugned order was upheld, and that the respondent would get his VISA renewed with it having been submitted that the Passport of the respondent was with the DRI, in the circumstances, the DRI was directed to ensure that a personnel of DRI accompanies the respondent for the renewal of the respondent’s VISA and that the renewal of the VISA was made in accordance with law. Taking into account the old age of the parents of the respondent, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in relation to the case titled as DRI V. Kim Dong Yeol. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Petitioner aggrieved by order allowing respondent to travel abroad.2. Respondent's submission for traveling abroad.3. Extradition Treaty between India and Korea.4. Validity of impugned order.5. Compliance with terms and conditions of the order.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order allowing the respondent to travel abroad, citing the ongoing proceedings under Sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act. The impugned order imposed conditions such as furnishing an FDR, providing addresses during stay abroad, surrendering passport upon return, and not seeking extension on any grounds. The respondent, arrested previously and granted bail, sought to travel to his country to attend to family financial issues, emphasizing no need for further investigation.2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) expressed concerns about the respondent's return, referencing the Extradition Treaty between India and Korea. Article 2(4) of the treaty states that extradition for tax-related offences shall not be refused based on differences in laws. The court noted that the treaty obligates extradition for such offences, except as per specific treaty provisions. The court dismissed apprehensions about the respondent's return based on the treaty.3. The respondent, with a valid visa to return, assured visa renewal despite the passport being held by the DRI. The court directed the DRI to accompany the respondent for visa renewal. The court acknowledged the extension of the respondent's visa till 30.4.2021 and the seizure of gold linked to the respondent's company, considering the existing Extradition Treaty and the respondent's elderly parents.4. Considering the circumstances, including the seized gold and the Extradition Treaty, the court found no flaw in the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The court emphasized the interest of justice, taking into account the respondent's family situation and the treaty provisions.5. The respondent's counsel confirmed compliance with all conditions of the order. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, affirming the validity of the impugned order and the respondent's travel abroad.