TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dollar value which were assessed by the Customs authorities and thereafter the drawback amount @ 12.25% was credited into the account of the petitioner and the remaining 4 consignments were exported under Repayment of State Credit Scheme (popularly known as the Rupee-Rubal Agreement) for which also the drawback back amount had been credited into the account of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly withdrew a sum of Rs. 32, 75,000/- but before the remaining amount of Rs. 36, 87, 493/- could be withdrawn by the petitioner, the respondent/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'DRI') authorities freezed the said account of the petitioner in 2003. On two occasions, the petitioner's statement was recorded in April, 2003 and later in April, 2004. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner at many instances made several requests to the DRI to de-freeze his account including the communication made on 15-10-2005, 12-11-2005, 08-12-2005 and 06-02-2006 but to no avail and instead was issued summons dated 08-06-2006 and 04-08-2006 from DRI, Delhi requiring the presence of the petitioner which are stated to be complied with on 19-06-2006 and 04-09-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner is not required to be arrested. It was also the petitioner's case that the DRI, Delhi had no jurisdiction since the matter relates to Mumbai and no cause of action has arisen in Delhi for DRI, Delhi to have jurisdiction. It is submitted that that the alleged over valuation in respect of first eight shipments is belated and is not substantiated with any evidence. In regard to the diversion of remaining four shipments to Dubai, the petitioner's plea is that the respondent has not contented that such goods were not exported therefore once such goods were exported and crossed the territorial waters of India, the petitioner became entitled to the incentive by way of duty drawback. Reliance was placed on the cases of Terai Oversees Ltd. v. UOI 2001 (129) ELT 574 (Cal.); Collector of Custom v. Sun Industries 1988 (35) ELT 241 (SC) and UOI v. Rajindra Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd. 2005 (180) ELT 433 wherein it was held that if the ship has left the Indian port and passed beyond the territorial waters of India, the title of the goods passes to the purchasers and the export of such goods are to be treated as complete as also the fact that the granting of benefit of drawback duty can be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with DRI pending the adjudication proceedings. 10. On the other hand, it is the case of DRI that the investigations conducted so far reveal that the petitioner has availed of the drawback amounting to Rs. 68,87,513/- (export value of approx. Rs. 5.74 crores) and fraudulently remitted Rs. 3 crores from RBI against ostensible exports to Russia under the Indo-Russia Rupee Rouble Agreement but the goods never reached Russia which is in violation of the said Agreement and provisions of the Exim Policy and the Customs Act. To substantiate its case, the attention of this court was brought to the evidence collected (marked as Annexure 'A' brought in sealed cover) which indicated that the Russian consignee was neither registered nor existed at the given address in Moscow as also that the said consignments reached Dubai instead of Russia and in view of such fictitious exports to Russia and diversion of goods to Dubai, it appeared that certain financial transactions were effected by the petitioner to give an ostensible cover of credibility to the exports as so declared. It was also indicated that the statement of the accomplice, showed that it was the petitioner who had directed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supra) with the present one wherein it is stated that the facts of the present case are different from the cases mentioned aforesaid and thus, the ratio of both the cases cannot be applied to the present case. 14. I have given deep thought to the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In fact, Mr. Deepankar Aron, Joint Director, DRI, ably assisted learned ASG and did explain before the Court the suspicion of the Department about the nature of transaction and the requirement of custodial interrogation very succinctly. 15. The first aspect to be taken note of is that the transaction relates to the period of June, 2002 to January, 2003. The matter has been under investigation since 2003 itself when the account of the petitioner of the Duty Drawback receipt was frozen to preserve the balance amount relating to the alleged export to Russia. As per the direction of this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and a statement has been recorded. The grievance of the Department is that the petitioner is not forth-coming with the true facts as to how the shipment was diverted to Dubai and how the monies were routed from Dubai. The stand of the petitioner,....