High Court Of Calcutta
Amitava Lala
SUGANDHA INDUSTRIES LTD - Appellant
Versus
A.K.SAHA - Respondent
W. P. 17634 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/06/2002
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - REASON TO BELIEVE - EXPORT - REASON TO SUSPECT - FISHING OUT EVIDENCE - DUTY EXEMPTION PASSBOOK SCHEME - MERCHANT EXPORTER - MANUFACTURER EXPORTER - FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 - DEPB LICENCES - CONFISCATION - SMUGGLING - VALUATION - REASONABLE BELIEF - GOOD FAITH - PRETENCE - ADEQUACY OF MATERIAL - TEST OF REASONABLENESS - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER - CONTEMPT - INFRUCTUOUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, engaged in the manufacture and export of calcium carbonate and calcium stearate, challenged the search and seizure conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at its office and factory premises on the ground that it was without any reason to believe that the goods were attempted to be exported without being manufactured in the company's unit. The petitioner also challenged the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs refusing to release DEPB licenses without a 'no objection' certificate from the DRI.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no reason to believe that the goods were attempted to be exported without being manufactured in the company's unit, as the export was finally concluded and there was no question of smuggling. The Court further held that the search and seizure was conducted simultaneously with the enquiry and investigation, which was contrary to law. The Court also held that the DRI's contention that the petitioner was not entitled to DEPB licenses because it was a merchant exporter and not a manufacturer exporter was not tenable, as the DEPB Scheme was available to both types of exporters. The Court quashed the summons and notices issued by the DRI, set aside the proceedings of enquiry, investigations, and search and seizure, and directed the authorities to return all the documents seized to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure conducted by the DRI was valid. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to DEPB licenses as a merchant exporter. 3. Whether the DRI could withhold the release of DEPB licenses without a 'no objection' certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A search and seizure can only be conducted if there is a reason to believe that the goods are attempted to be exported without being manufactured in the company's unit. In the instant case, there was no such reason to believe, as the export was finally concluded and there was no question of smuggling. 2. The DEPB Scheme is available to both manufacturer exporters and merchant exporters. 3. The DRI cannot withhold the release of DEPB licenses without a 'no objection' certificate, as there is no legal basis for such a requirement.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the summons and notices issued by the DRI, set aside the proceedings of enquiry, investigations, and search and seizure, and directed the authorities to return all the documents seized to the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE petitioner company M/s. Sugandha Industries Limited is carrying on business as manufacturer and exporter of calcium carbonate and calcium stearate. According to them, on 17th October, 2001 some Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter called as D. R. I.) led by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to the office and factory premises of the petitioner and ransacked the place in the name of search. As and when the search was conducted at the factory-cum-registered office of the company, the Calcutta office situated at 228a, AJC Bose Road, 5th Floor, Calcutta-700 020 was also searched by another group of Officers. The petitioner's Officers and employees were not allowed to know what documents the respondent authorities were searching and no reason or ground of such purported search was disclosed to the petitioner company. No notice or memo was served upon the petitioner. No order authorising such search was served upon the petitioner. Such search was conducted for several hours. The petitioners were not aware the materials or documents they were carrying when they entered into office premises, what documents and materials they collected in the course of search, what materials and documents they took away with them and what materials and documents were planted by them at the said office premises. Since about 3 p. m. of 17th October, 2001 till the evening of 18th October, 2001 the entire office was under the control of the persons who had conducted such search. It was led by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In course of such search they assaulted one purchase Officer of the petitioner company. They slapped him, pushed him and then in the evening of 18th October, 2001 took him with them to another office of the petitioner company at 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-700 020 from where he was taken to the office of D. R. I. at Ho Chi Minh Sarani. Similar allegations are also made in respect of other employee or employees. The allegations are made that they have behaved in unruly manner and obtained tutored statements under the threat of further assault. One of the employees was detained even 24 hours. Likewise various other allegations are made against the respondents.
( 2 ) THE respondents contended that the petitioner company is not the manufacturer of calcium stearate. They are actually manufacturer of calcium carbonate. In the product of calcium carbonate percentage of availability of calcium stearate is 3% whereas in the product calcium stearate such percentage is 90%. At the material point of time, the export quantity of product calcium stearate of the company was boost up apprehensively. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that calcium stearate must have been purchased from the local market instead of manufacturing the same. In such case, the petitioner company is not entitled to any benefit under the Duty Exemption Scheme.
( 3 ) IN reply thereto, the petitioner contended that it is not obligatory upon the company that it has to manufacture calcium stearate and them export it to get benefit under Duty Exemption Scheme. Even merchant exporter can get such benefit. The Duty Exemption Passbook (hereinafter called as DEPB) Scheme is made by the Union Government as a policy to boost up the export and to have more foreign exchange. There is a limit of getting foreign exchange under DEPB Scheme. However, the action on the part of the respondents is speculative in nature.
( 4 ) ALTHOUGH no interim order was passed by this Court interfering with the investigation but when the affidavit was filed by the respondents investigator/s the Court expressed desire not to disturb the status of the parties till the finalisation of writ proceedings. However, it has complained by the petitioner company that even thereafter enquiry/investigation was conducted in violation of the desire of the Court derived on a consensus between the parties. Accordingly, a contempt application was made. However, it has not
REFERRED TO : Bishnu Krishna Shrestha v. Union of India and Ors.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Board of Revenue, Madras v. Ramkrishna Shrikishan Javer, etc.
Dr.Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Ors.
K.I. Parumy v. Assistant Collector (HG) C.Es Collectorate, Cochin and Ors.
Indru Ramchand Bharvani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.