Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds DRI Chennai Summons on Gold Imports, Declines to Shift Investigation Location.

The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by a Noida-based private limited company challenging the DRI Chennai's summons regarding gold imports. The court ruled that the petitioner cannot dictate the investigation's location, emphasizing that interference is unwarranted unless jurisdiction is lacking. The summons and proceedings remain valid, and the related application was closed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involve the jurisdiction of investigation between the Customs Department in Hyderabad and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Chennai regarding the import of gold and silver findings by a private limited company based in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Investigation
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the summons issued by the DRI in Chennai regarding the import of gold findings, arguing that the investigation should be undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad where the earlier proceedings had taken place. The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous judgment to support the request for investigation in Hyderabad. The senior standing counsel for the first and second respondents highlighted that the investigation by customs authorities is limited to tariff value, while the DRI's investigation has a wider scope. The junior standing counsel for the third respondent emphasized that the petitioner does not have the authority to choose the investigating officer or the location of the investigation, pointing out the petitioner's location in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that interference with summons and proceedings is inappropriate unless in extraordinary situations or lack of jurisdiction, and declined to interfere with the DRI's summons, noting the differences in the current case compared to the previous judgment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the summons dated 09.02.2024 and the proceedings, stating that it is not advisable to second guess the purpose of the investigation at this preliminary stage. The court did not find grounds to interfere with the summons and closed the related application without costs.

---