TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing No.8911267 dated 16.03.2017, for clearance of Ammonium Sulphate at the assessable value of Rs.67,50,658.20 and paid the requisite customs duty. However, the consignment was wrongly sent by the Supplier and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued an alert against him. The search was conducted at his godown on 22.03.2017 and the goods were seized for not providing the import documents in respect of them. 3. During the investigations, the Petitioner appeared before DRI on 30.03.2017, 31.03.2017 and 10.04.2017 and his statements were recorded under Section 108 Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Customs Act"). 4. During the investigations, on the directions of DRI, Petitioner, Manish Kumar Jain deposited Rs. 3 Crores against the past import. The Petitioner also deposited Rs. 1,19,78,677/- in respect of the imported consignment against the Bill of Entry No. 8911267 dated 16.03.2017. Because of the mistake of Supplier, some wrong description got mentioned on them, leading to the goods being seized by DRI on 21.04.2017, even though the entire amount had been deposited. 5. Despite having deposited the duty and 'No Objection' of DRI, the goods had been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s initiated by DRI under Customs Act, before the Ld. Sessions Judge which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 19.12.2017. 15. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Crl. M.C. No.353/2018 and Crl. M.A. No. 1376-77/2018 to challenge the Complaint Case No. 26460/2016 and also the Summoning Order dated 20.11.2017, but since the two Orders/documents were not filed, he withdrew the same with liberty to file the same afresh. 16. Thereafter, the present Writ petition has been filed to challenge the Summoning Order dated 20.11.2017 and the Order dated 22.01.2018 vide which the NBWs have been issued against him. 17. The grounds of challenge are that the Summons were issued to the Petitioner as well as the Surety, even though no surety has been furnished by the Petitioner till then. This shows that there was non-application of mind while passing the Order dated 20.11.2017. The DRI has misused the provision of Section 108 Customs Act to issue summons to the Petitioner, whenever any Order was made by Ld. Apex Court or Ld. Division Bench of this Court. For the non-compliance of summons on different occasions, two Complaints have been filed against the Petitioner which shows that DRI wants to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 735, wherein it was observed that Section 4 and 5 Cr.P.C. cannot come to the aid of investigations for the offence under FERA. 25. In the end, reliance has been placed on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein it is submitted that where the proceeding is an abuse of process of law, the same must be quashed. 26. Hence, a prayer is made that the Criminal Complaint No. 26460/2017 under Section 174 IPC be quashed along with Order dated 20.11.2017 and Order dated 22.01.2018 vide which NBWs have been directed to be issued. 27. The Respondents have filed a Reply, wherein it is submitted that the Summons dated 16.11.2017 were issued on behalf of Respondent No.4 (in Crl. M.C. No. 3608/2017) which was sent to the residential address of the Petitioner. Thereafter, again the summons dated 23.11.2017 were issued for the Petitioner to appear on 30.11.2017, which was sent to his Counsel and was delivered on 25.11.2017. In terms of Section 153 Customs Act, a copy of the summons was also displayed on the Notice Board of ICD, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi, which was displayed on 24.11.2017. 28. The Anticipatory Bail applied by the Petitioner, Manish Kumar Jain was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctorate & Anr. vs. M. Samba Siva Rao & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 431; and Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 2 SCC 18. 35. It is further contended that the impugned Complaint has been filed without following due process of law and has not been filed in good faith. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner is not participating in the Enquiry at all. The only allegation is that he had not appeared on single occasion even though he had appeared thrice prior to this summon and had been pressurized to deposit Rs. 3 Crores. 36. The summons issued on 22.07.2017 were pasted at the door of his house since he was out of station which reflects the undue haste without following the prescribed procedure, with the sole purpose of erroneously framing the Petitioner and without considering the reasons for non-appearance. 37. The last contention is that whole proceeding is a nullity as the summons had not been issued in accordance with the procedure. Reliance has been placed on State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770. 38. Submissions heard and record perused. 39. The present Complaint under S.174 IPC is based on the allegatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be dealt under S. 117 Customs Act to impose a penalty upon him. 44. Therefore, in case the concerned person fails to comply with summons under Section 108 Customs Act, Section 117 Customs Act takes care thereof in as much as it provides for penalty for contravention of the said provision. 45. Sections 174/175 IPC provides punishment for committing offences for non-attendance or omission to produce document or electronic record by a person legally bound to produce, in obedience to an Order from the public servant. 46. In the case of Delta Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2004 (73) DRJ 417 (DB) and Enforcement Directorate vs. M. Samba Siva Rao (2000) 5 SCC 431, it was observed that Customs Act itself is a complete Code and provides for various stages of investigations, imposition of penalties, settlement of cases and Appeals. 47. Had there been no provision like Section 117 Customs Act providing for penalty for disobedience of any Order made under the Customs Act, then Section 174/175 could have been invoked. 48. In similar situation, the apex Court in the case of General Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan 2009 (5) DCR 501 wherein for an offence in regard to a compl....