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

The court upheld the order allowing the respondent to travel abroad, subject to conditions such as surrendering the passport upon return and not seeking extensions. Concerns raised by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding the respondent's return under the Extradition Treaty between India and Korea were dismissed. The court directed the DRI to accompany the respondent for visa renewal, considering the circumstances, including the seized gold and the respondent's family situation. The court found no flaw in the impugned order, emphasizing compliance with the conditions and the interest of justice, ultimately affirming the respondent's travel abroad.

---

---

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.

---