SIDDHARTH JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner therein has been summoned by the fourth respondent in ongoing investigation in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence case, the process having been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. By the petition at hand, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer is made for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the said summons dated 24-5-2017 and/or writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to allow the presence of the counsel for the petitioner during recording of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted a status report in a sealed cover for perusal by the Court. He, however, submitted at the hearing that the case under investigation concerns certain transactions indulged in by a partnership firm described as Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers, where Manish Kumar Jain, father of the petitioner is the proprietor. On the basis of intelligence received concerning certain imports of PVC Resin Suspension Grade Melamine, they having statedly been mis-declared as ammonium sulphate and ammonium chloride, the case has been taken up for investigation by the respondents. It is stated that the evidence gathered, thus far, has revealed mis-declaration of the goods with the objective of evading customs duty and anti-dumping duty.

(3.) Earlier, the statement of Manish Kumar Jain, father of the petitioner was recorded by the respondents (investigating officer) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The disclosures statedly made during such statement, and further investigation carried in their wake, have led to recording of statements of certain other witnesses. It is the submission of the respondents that the statements of some witnesses recorded have brought out active participation in the said business, particularly the transactions in question, on the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner received inward credit into his account amounts over Rs. 5.70 crores, substantially from the account of the afore-mentioned firm, for which there is no explanation has been offered.