The issuance of Look Out Circulars against individuals requires conditions of cognizable offences to be met, and cannot be used merely based on economic interests or past investigations without current proceedings.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued at the behest of respondent no. 1/ the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), against the petitioner.

2. During the course of arguments on 11.08.2025, it was brought to the attention of this Court that the LOC was issued in the year 2015. Taking note of this submission, this Court directed the respondents to place on record the LOC against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.08.2025 reads as under –

“Let the existing LOC against the petitioner be also placed on record by the respondent before the next date of hearing.”

3. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, respondent no. 1 filed an Additional Affidavit dated 28.08.2025, wherein it was disclosed that a Look Out Circular was first issued against the petitioner on 06.11.2015, which had been renewed or amended from time to time. It was further stated that “Ultimately on 28.05.2025 the said LOC was further opened.”

4. However, during the subsequent hearing on 15.10.2025, Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for respondent no. 2 clarified that the initial LOC issued in 2015 had in fact lapsed in 2018, and that a fresh LOC had been issued only on 28.05.2025.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said LOC. The petitioner is a foreign national of Indian origin holding an OCI Card. He resides in Hong Kong and is the sole shareholder and director of Century Exports Limited (CEL), a company registered in Hong Kong, involved in the business of international trading of goods including export of coal, metals and electronic goods. His mother and younger brother are residents of Jharsuguda, Odisha, and he owns substantial movable and immovable assets within India.

6. It is submitted that between 2011 and 2015, CEL supplied various consignments of coal to two Indian companies, both of whom are engaged in power generation in India. It is averred that these transactions were carried out pursuant to duly executed contracts and supported by proper invoices which were settled through regular bank channels.

7. It is further submitted that all consignments supplied by CEL were duly received and utilized by the concerned companies in India and at no point did any dispute arise between CEL and these entities regarding the quality, quantity, or valuation of the coal supplied.

8. However, respondent no. 1, suspecting over-valuation and inferior quality of coal supplied by CEL, registered a case under File No. DRI/MZU/F/INT-154/2014 against CEL and the power generating companies viz. Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RIL) and Rosa Power Supply Company Limited (Rosa Power).

9. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.08.2016 to CEL, RIL, and Rosa Power, proposing to redetermine the value of coal and impose penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 . The relevant portion of the show cause notice is reproduced as under –

“37. Now, therefore,

37.1 M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (R- Infra) are hereby called upon to show cause, in writing, to the Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the Principal Commissioner / Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, having his office at New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001, within thirty days of receipt of this Show Cause Notice, as to why:-

(a) The declared CIF value of Coal consignments imported at Dahanu Port, as detailed in 'Annexure-A to this Notice, having aggregate declared value as Rs.860,46,25,154/-, should not be rejected under Rule 1