2023 (9) TMI 1394 - HC - Customs

Court upholds legality of DRI investigation under Customs Act, dismisses writ petition challenging summons.

Pranshu Goel Versus Additional Director General, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

Pranshu Goel Versus Additional Director General, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).2. Validity of successive summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Implications of the detention order under COFEPOSA.4. Relevance of the Supreme Court's order dated 04 July 2023.Summary:1. Legality of the investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI):The petitioner sought to set aside the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against them. The court noted that investigations should not be interfered with except in grave and special circumstances where it is manifest that no offense had been committed. The court found no basis to sustain the relief claimed by the petitioner, stating that the material on record did not meet the tests for such interference.2. Validity of successive summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:The petitioner argued that once arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, they should be viewed as an accused, and no further summons should be issued. The court clarified that the formation of an opinion of the commission of an offense does not equate to being viewed as an accused. The term 'accused' refers to someone against whom cognizance has been taken or a chargesheet filed, which was not the case here. The court also emphasized that the power to arrest is to aid the ongoing investigation or inquiry, and the respondents are empowered to summon persons for participation in the inquiry.3. Implications of the detention order under COFEPOSA:The court addressed the relevance of a detention order passed against the petitioner's father under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The court explained that Section 3 is a preventive measure to restrain habitual offenders from violating the law. The court cited various voluntary statements and evidence indicating the involvement of the petitioner's father in evading customs duty and engaging in smuggling activities, justifying the detention order.4. Relevance of the Supreme Court's order dated 04 July 2023:The petitioner referenced an order of the Supreme Court framing questions of law regarding the jurisdiction and powers of DRI officers under the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that while these questions were framed for further consideration, there was no interim restraint on the authorities from proceeding in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, allowing the investigation and the issuance of summons to continue as per the legal provisions.