AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.A. Mehta, J.—This petition challenges detention of goods, shipped by the petitioner to India from Hong Kong, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, respondent No. 5 herein as per communication dated 02.01.2009
Upon issuance of notice respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have tendered affidavit-in-reply dated 28.01.2009. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 09.02.2009. As the pleadings are complete and the controversy is limited in scope, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. RULE. Learned Counsel for the respondents is directed to waive service.
The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner, a proprietary trading organization, registered under the laws of Hong Kong, is engaged in business of trading in rough diamonds. It is the case of the petitioner that a commission agent in Hong Kong approached the petitioner for shipment of consignment of rough diamonds to buyers in India. Accordingly, the petitioner prepared invoices and shipped a total of seven consignments of rough diamonds to the said buyers under airway bills sometime on or about 21.11.2008. It is the say of the petitioner that before the relevant documents, including documents to the title, could be dispatched, the petitioner learnt that the said buyers had refused to accept the consignments in absence of any confirmed order having been placed by the buyers. The alleged buyers in India rejected the delivery of goods on 12.12.2008. Therefore, on 13.12.2008 the petitioner wrote to the competent authority for permission to re-ship and/or re-export the said goods back to Hong Kong. This was followed up by various communications and visits to the offices of respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Vide impugned communication dated 02.01.2009 respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that as the matter was under investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat and as no Bills of Entries had been filed by the petitioner, re-export or re-shipment could not be permitted at the said point of time. It is the say of the petitioner that it was only by the said communication that the petitioner came to be know that the consignments had been detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat, but no notice of such detention was served on the petitioner. Hence the petition, praying for release of the goods and permit the petitioner to re-ship/re-export the said goods.
On behalf of the respondent authorities it was contended that prima facie there was an apprehension that the transaction, like the present one, would result in siphoning off huge foreign exchange from India by overvaluing goods and hence, necessary investigation in this regard was in progress. Various other contentions have been raised in the petition as to the nature of documents produced by the petitioner.
In light of the aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply and the overall submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent authorities the matter was adjourned time and again to enable the authorities to place the result of investigation on record. Despite such opportunities having been granted the respondent authorities have not been able to place anything on record as of today. Learned Counsel states, under instructions, that the investigation is yet continuing, but in the same breath accepts that till date the respondent authorities have not been able to lay their hands on any cogent piece of evidence to link the petitioner with any unlawful or illegal activity under any law prevalent.
In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the goods which reached India in November 2008 are being detained without any valid authority in law. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed Bills of Entry. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, it would serve the ends of justice if the goods in question are directed to be released while leaving it open to the respondent authorities to continue their investigation. Learned advocate for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the petitioner shall co-operate in the on going investigation.
Hence, in light of what is recorded hereinbefore, the respondent authorities are directed to release the goods in question detained by respondent No. 5 within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. Respondent No. 3 authority is also directed to simultaneously permit re-export/re-shipment of the goods in question in accordance with law within the same time period.
The petition is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.