TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for which, the company has executed a letter of undertaking and bank guarantee in favour of the Ministry of Revenue for the imported goods. After installing the imported machines, the company has obtained Installation Certificates from the Central Excise Department. The company has obtained exemption from Customs Duty after fulfilling Export Obligation, imposed by the Ministry of Commerce, Indian Republic under Foreign Trade Policy and as per the policy of the Ministry of Commerce, the company has to export the allied materials to foreign countries either manufactured by the petitioners' company or through third party company, within a period of 8 years from the date of installation of the machineries. In order to fulfill the Export Obligation as mentioned above, the petitioners company has exported goods to the tune of Rs. 65,51,298/- and also through third party company namely, M/s.Avaneetha Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore and M/s.Shri Ramalinga Mills, Aruppukottai. The said two companies are the members of the South Indian Mills Association (SIMA). Thereafter, the petitioners company submitted their report before the Ministry of Commerce and after scrutinizing the documents,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption notification. 6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the intelligence pointed out that the importer had obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Madurai, by submitting irrelevant export documents, showing exports have been done on their behalf and in order to evade customs duty payable for non-fulfillment of export obligation as undertaken by the importer, at the time of importing the capital goods machineries. The petitioners had submitted shipping bills in respect of exports made by third party exporters, by filing false certificates to the effect that the goods covered under shipping bills were manufactured by the petitioners. The factual position was that there is no commercial relationship or transaction between the third party exporters and the 2nd petitioner herein, had issued a false certificate certifying that the goods covered under shipping bills had been manufactured by the petitioners. 7. Based on the above, on 23.07.2015, the officials of DRI, Tuticorin and Madurai Regional Unit have verified the records maintained in respect of EPCG licences. On such verification, it was came to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd got their export obligation discharged and shared the benefit. 11. It is stated that the summon had been issued to the Executive Director of the petitioners company directing them to appear before the authority. Subsequently, another summon was issued requiring the appearance of the petitioner on 03.08.2015. It is stated that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) vide Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated 15.02.1999 has directed that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to undertake investigations of cases and to issue the show cause notices on completion of investigation. Further, the circular empowers the officers of DRI to undertake investigation and issue show cause notice in cases, where they have investigated and the adjudication is to be done by jurisdictional Commissionerates. In the absence of the petitioners, on the basis of the above statutory circular issued by the CBEC, the investigating agency cannot open an investigation. 12. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, any gazetted officer of customs is empowered to summon any person either to give evidence or to produce documents or any other thing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14. In support of the contention the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in 2011(265) ELT 17 (SC) (Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali). 15. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the Notification No.31 of 1997-Cus.(N.T.), dated 07.07.1997 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Government of India has appointed all officers to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to be the officers of Customs. Therefore, the 2nd repsondent being the gazetted officer of the Customs, is empowered to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 16. The learned standing counsel for the respondents relied on a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12136 of 2014 (Abhishek Mundhra Vs. The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai) wherein this Court has held as follows: " To support such arguments the definition of proper officer as defined under Section 2(34) is pressed into service and by relying on the decision in the case of Sayed Ali & Anr., (supra), it is submitted that only such officers of customs, who h....