XYZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims to be an informer. He claims to have furnished information to officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Mumbai to the effect that a company forming part of the More Group of Companies obtained advance licences and imported products such as polythene granules, copper cathodes, mulberry silk and RBD palmoline at the Ports of Calcutta, Nhava Sheva and Kandla and had evaded customs duty by under invoicing the imports and by acting upon forged documents. According to the Petitioner, the D.R.I. arrested Ashwini Kumar More, a director of one of the entities and recovered an amount of Rs. 22.8 crores towards duty liable to be paid. Demand drafts are stated to have been deposited with the State Bank of India, Kandla Branch. According to the Petitioner, the value of the goods seized and confiscated is Rs. 16 crores and the duty collected is Rs. 2.88 crores.

(2.) The Petitioner claims to be entitled to a reward representing 20% of the value of the goods confiscated and duty recovered. The Petitioner addressed letters on 19 June 1999, 5 December 2000, 15 April 2003, 2 October 2004, 3 September 2005, 23 July 2008 and 14 May 2010 to which there was no reply either from the Additional Directors General of the DRI at Mumbai or at Ahmedabad. An Advocate s notice' was addressed on 1 October 2010. These proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the release of a reward in the amount of 20% in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 16 April 2004.

(3.) An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Assistant Director, DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. It has been stated therein that information was received by the DRI in its Zonal unit at Mumbai which indicated that Mr. Ashwin Kumar More of More Overseas, Calcutta had imported goods such as Polyethylene Granules, Mulberry Silk & Copper Cathodes, etc., against bogus advance licences.. The imports were stated to be under invoiced. The Additional Director General, DRI by a letter dated 24 June 2004 stated that a case had been registered on the basis of specific information received by the DRI, Mumbai. 31 show cause notices were issued by the DRI, Mumbai to various companies and the remaining cases were investigated by the DRI at Ahmedabad. The Additional Director General of the DRI, Mumbai by his letter dated 11 March 2011 stated that no confiscation / recovery has been made in the cases investigated by the Mumbai Zonal unit. As regards the cases investigated by DRI, Ahmedabad, upon completion of investigations, six show cause notices were issued. In one case relating to the import of RBD Palmolein by M/s. Associated Industries, which forms part of the More Group of Companies, certain amounts are stated to have been recovered upon the provisional release of seized goods and on appropriation of amounts payable by various buyers to the importer. A case was registered against Associated Industries, Tinsukia, who had purchased RBD Palmolein on a high seas sales basis from four firms in the More Group wherein it is alleged that the imports were under- valued and bogus quantity based licences were utilised. Show cause notices were issued on 25 September 1998 and 18 November 1998. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla passed orders on 6 December 2000 for confiscation, penalty and interest. Various amounts representing the sale proceeds came to be adjusted. An amount of Rs. 1.10 crores is stated to have been paid in terms of the order of adjudication. Another show cause notice issued to Associated Industries, Tinsukhia is stated to have resulted in an order of adjudication dated 29 July 2002 whereunder an amount of Rs. 69.03 lacs which was deposited with the Commissioner of Customs was directed to be confiscated.