Disposed

M/S Kims Cancer Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. v. the Additional Director

Kerala HC3 Apr 2014WP(C)/7224/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court upheld the validity of summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to a company official to appear in Mumbai for investigation. The court directed conduct of inquiry locally to avoid harassment and considered the claim for expenses. Rendition: Appeared in Mumbai or locally if required.

What did the court decide?

Director to appear in Mumbai on date fixed with at least two weeks' notice; otherwise, inquiry to be conducted at Thiruvananthapuram or Cochin; claim for expenses to be considered.

M/S Kims Cancer Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014/13TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 7224 OF 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. KIMS CANCER CARE AND RESEARCH CENTER PVT. LTD., (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS KIMS PINNACLE CANCER CARE AND RESEARCH CENTER PVT.LTD) P.B.NO.1 , ANAYARA P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 029.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL .D. NAIR, SRI.M.BALAGOPAL, SRI.R.SREEJITH, SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI, SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT, 5TH FLOOR, U.T.I BUILDING, OPPOSITE PATKAR HALL, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI - 400 020.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶12

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT, 5TH FLOOR, U.T.I BUILDING, OPPOSITE PATKAR HALL, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI - 400 020.

¶13

3. THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI ZONAL UNIT, 5TH FLOOR, U.T.I BUILDING, OPPOSITE PATKAR HALL, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI - 400 020.

¶14

BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,S.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.7224/2014-C:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.1.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 21.1.2014 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-4:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 6.2.2014 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-5:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-8:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 4.3.2014 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-9:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 4.3.2014 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-10:	TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION IN CIRCULAR NO.F.NO.208/122/89-C.X6 DATED 13.10.1986.
EXT.P-11:	TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION IN LETTER NO.F.137/39/2007-CX-4 DATED 26.2.2007.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C).No.7224 of 2014

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2014

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is a private limited company. In this writ petition, they challenges Ext.P8 notice issued to the Director of the Company in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The grievance of the petitioner is that the company having its registered and administrative office at Thiruvananthapuram, the officials of the company are being summoned to Mumbai unnecessarily in connection with the alleged investigation, in relation to import of medical equipments for the petitioner through Cochin Port. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have no objection in co-operating with any investigation or any enquiry initiated by the respondents. However, summoning to Mumbai will involve huge financial commitment to the petitioner-company as well as amount to harassment to the officials of the petitioner-company. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Rajnish Kumar Tuli v. Union of India [2009 (238) E.L.T. 727 (P&H)] and submits that if the respondents want to question the officials of the petitioner-company, they may come down to Thiruvananthapuram or Cochin and they are prepared to co-operate with them.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.7224/2014

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

However, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central

¶35

Board of Excise Department submits that the summons are issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act by exercising the statutory power and, in exercise of such power, the officials have the right to summon any officials of the petitioner-company to any place for the purpose of investigation initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in LGW Limited v. Union of India [2008 (229) E.L.T. 663 (Cal.)] , to support the right of the respondents to summon a witness for the purpose of investigation. The right of the respondents cannot be disputed, those rights are endowed under the customs Act. However, the personal liberty of the individuals are also liable to be safeguarded. They shall not be unnecessarily summoned unless they are so required for the investigation and their presence is so indispensable for the purpose of investigation under the Act. Keeping the balance of those interests, I am of the view that the following orders can be passed:

¶36

The Director of the petitioner-company mentioned in Ext.P8 shall appear before the authorities at Mumbai on 24/04/2014 or on any other date

¶37

W.P.(C).No.7224/2014

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

which may be fixed by the respondents after giving at least two weeks’ time to the petitioner to comply with it. The petitioner's claim for expenses shall be considered by the respondents, if it is allowable in accordance with the relevant rules. However, if the presence of the officials of the petitioner are required for further investigation in connection with the inquiry, their presence at Mumbai or any other place shall not be insisted and the respondents shall conduct inquiry either at Thiruvananthapuram or at Cochin. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶42

M/S Kims Cancer Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. v. the Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kims Cancer Care and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. v. the Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Gopakumar Vs the State Lottery Director

Jilson Thomas C. Vs State of Kerala

Vijayaraghavan T.A Vs General Manager, Fci

Basheena A.P Vs the Director

Sebastian P.J. Vs District Collector, Wayanad

I.Shahul Hameed Vs Revenue Divisional Officer & Presiding Officer