IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

202-1 CWP-11565-2007 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 M/S JINDAL FINE INDUS. ...Petitioner Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …Respondents AND Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

No.

2. CWP-11553-2007 M/s Gold Star Union Of India and Ors.

(O&M) Industries

3. CWP-11680-2007 M/s Jagraon Exports Union Of India and Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sarjit Bhadu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Veer Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sanya Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (s)

Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel (through V.C.) with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Geetika Jindal, Advocate for respondents-DRI & UOI Mr. Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Isha Janjua, Advocate for respondent-Customs ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-

11565-2007.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of show cause notices dated 29.09.2007 (Annexure P-20) and 27.05.2008 (Annexure P-21) issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’). They are further seeking direction to respondent to refund a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- which was recovered during the course of investigation. They are also seeking release of documents/files/computers.

3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that prayer qua release of documents/files/computers no more survives.

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of bicycle parts. It exported out of country bicycle parts during 2004-05. On 15.09.2005, Officers of DRI conducted search at business and residential premises of the petitioner. During the course of search, certain documents including computers and laptops were resumed. The respondent recorded statements of officials/partners of petitioner on different occasions. On the basis of scrutiny of documents and statement of officials/partners of the petitioner, the respondent-DRI formed an opinion that petitioner in the manufacture & export of bicycle parts utilized Hot Rolled (for short ‘HR’ Sheet as input whereas Duty Free Replenishment Certificate(s) (for short ‘DFRC’) were obtained with respect to input namely Cold Rolled Closed Annealed (for short ‘CRCA’). During the course of investigation, the DRI received different policy circulars/letters from Directorate General of Foreign Trade (for short ‘DGFT’) clarifying that there is flexibility in utilization of HR sheets and CRCA. The DRI did not agree with the opinion of DGFT and issued impugned show cause notices dated 29.09.2007 and 27.05.2008 calling upon the petitioner as well as user of DFRC (Importers) to show cause as to why duty foregone at the time of import of CRCA utilization DFRC issued to petitioner should not be demanded along with interest and penalty. The petitioner preferred petition before this Court assailing show cause notice on different grounds including jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notice.

5. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated

04.12.2024. The relevant extracts of order dated 04.12.2024 reads as:-

“13. Keeping in view the order passed by the Supreme Court in M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the DRI officer would be held to be a ‘proper officer’ for issuing of notice and conducting of investigation. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner(s) that the DRI officer would have no jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. We, therefore, reject the same and direct the DRI to proceed ahead and pass appropriate orders.

If the petitioners are still aggrieved keeping in view the orders passed by the Supreme Court, they would be free to file appeal before the appellate authority, in accordance with law

14. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed o