Delhi High Court
Ambay Industrial Corporations vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 December, 2019
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 12679/2019
AMBAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS ..... Petitioner
Through Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, Adv.
with Mr. Priyadarshi Manish,
Adv. with Ms. Jasmeet Kaur,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Ruchi Jain, Adv. for Mr.
Sarfaraz Ahmad, Adv. for R-1/UOI
Mr. Amit Bansal, SSC with Mr.
Aman Rewaria and Ms.Vipasha
Mishra, Adv.for R-2 and 4
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. for DRI
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 02.12.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 12679/2019
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to the Respondent No.3 - Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, not to take any coercive action against the
Petitioner and its officials for recovery of any customs duty
with regard to past imports during the pendency of ongoing
investigation and before issuance of Show Cause Notice;
and/or
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to the Respondent No. 3 to refund the amount of
Rs.50 Lakhs collected in the form of demand draft bearing
No.016594 dated 16.10.2019 of Rs.30 Lakhs, demand draft
No. 016598 on 11.10.2019 for Rs.10 Lakhs and demand
draft No. 016607 dated 21.10.2019 for Rs.10 Lakhs collected
by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Headquarter,
New Delhi from the Petitioner against the past import
without issuing any Show Cause Notice for demand of duty;
(c) Pass such other order or further order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner has
deposited ₹ 30 lakhs vide Demand Draft bearing no. 016594 dated 11th
October, 2019, ₹ 10 lakhs vide Demand Draft bearing no. 016598 dated
16th October, 2019 and ₹10 lakhs vide Demand Draft bearing no. 016607
dated 21st October, 2019 with the Respondent No.3. In all, the petitioner
has deposited ₹ 50 lakhs with the Respondent No.3.
3. It appears that the investigation is going on for the alleged violation
of the provision of Customs Act, 1962 wherein, the investigation agency
has already recorded the statements of the petitioner and the relevant
persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are
retraction-statements made by the persons, whose statements have been
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Be that as it may, the amount which is deposited by the petitioner
cannot be ordered to be refunded by this Court, at this stage, because -
(a) we do not accept the argument canvassed by counsel for the
petitioner that amount of ₹ 50 lakhs with respondent no. 3 was deposited
under coercion because allegation of "coercion cannot be established by
way of annexures in the writ petition". In fact, cogent and convincing
evidences are required to be led to establish coercion.
(b) as the investigation for the alleged breach of provisions of the
Customs Act, 1962 is already going on, we do not wish to observe
anything in favour or against this petitioner for the statements recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which are otherwise
admissible in evidence.
(c) retraction of a statement is one thing which does not, inevitably
and in every case, necessarily affect the evidentiary value of the
statement, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(d) at this stage, we are neither appreciating the statement recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, nor we are appreciating the
retraction of the petitioner's statement recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962.
(e) at this stage, it will be absolutely premature to come to a
conclusion that the amount deposited by the petitioner was not required to
be deposited by the petitioner before the respondent no.3.
(f) the illegality or otherwise of the deposition of the aforesaid amount
depends upon variety of factors like issuance of the notices by the
respondents for the breach of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the
voluntary nature of deposition by the petitioner, sometimes retracted
statement may not be accepted by the respondent etc., or there may be
permutation and combinations of the aforesaid facts also.
(g) the petitioner can always file a suit for recovery of the aforesaid
amount from the respondent no.3.
6. In view of the above reasons, we see no reason to pass any order in
favour of the petitioner for refund of the amount as prayed for in this writ
petition.
7. So far as prayer (a) of the writ petition is concerned, there is only a
presumption that the respondent is going to take coercive action against
this petitioner.
8. We expect from the respondent that they shall act in accordance
with law, rules, regulations and Government policy, applicable to the
facts of the case, while investigating the case of the petitioner.
9. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DECEMBER 02, 2019
dsn
