TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 - -<br>Customs<br>Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondents 1, 2 : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Sr. SC For the Respondent 3 : Mr.B.Aravind Srevatsa, Jr. SC ORDER The petitioner is a private limited company based in Noida Uttar Pradesh. The matter relates to the import of gold and silver findings, which are small components in jewelle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of investigation by the third respondent and the subject matter of the summons issued by the first respondent is identical. Although he concedes that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the DRI) has the jurisdiction to investigate, in view of investigation by the Customs Department in Hyderabad which has progressed with the participation of the petitioner, he submits that the investigation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondents. He submits that the investigation is at a preliminary stage and that the scope of investigation by the customs authorities is confined to tariff value, whereas the ambit of investigation of the DRI is wider. By referring to an earlier order of this Court, he submits that interference with proceedings pursuant to summons may only be warranted in extraordinary situations, and that this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cases where the person issuing the summons does not have jurisdiction or authority to do so, it is inappropriate in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with summons' and proceedings pursuant thereto. In this case, the earlier summons and investigation was undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad. The impugned summons was issued by the DRI at Chennai....