High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-17Disposed of with directions (petition disposed)

M/S Silver Star Seafoods Ltd. and M/S InsaF Exports v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamnagar, and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.4649/2019(E) & W.P.(C).No.23453/2019(F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2019-10-17
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed by directing the petitioners to appear before the Jamnagar authorities for recording sworn statements on a date mutually convenient, with the process to be conducted in conformity with natural justice and the provisions of the relevant Act. Recording of evidence shall be voluntary and without coercion. The respondents shall issue notices to fix a suitable date. The directives are to be implemented in a manner consistent with legal safeguards and the rights of the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions (petition disposed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S Silver Star Seafoods Ltd.
M/S InsaF Exports

Respondents

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamnagar
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamnagar
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin Zonal Unit
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calicut

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anil D. Nair
• M. Balagopal
• R. Devika
• Sreejith R. Nair
• Achyut K. Padmaraaj
• Arya Anil
• Nilooofar O.
• Nizam Gokulraj L.

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Manu (SC), DRI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This joint writ petition concerns the legality of summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in relation to export under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). The petitioners, a Kerala-based company and a partnership firm, challenge notices directing them to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Jamnagar, contending that since the DRI has Regional Units within Kerala (Cochin, Calicut, Thiruvananthapuram), there is no necessity to travel to Jamnagar when the evidence can be collected locally. They also attach medical certificates indicating inability to undertake travel. The respondents submit that the Jamnagar Unit launched an all-India investigation and that centralised processing is essential for data compilation and analysis; the Officers there are more familiar with the background of the alleged offences. Relying on Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (AIR 1998 SC 696) and subsequent High Court decisions such as Rajnishkumar Tuli, the court was urged not to interfere with the venue, timings, or manner of questioning by the investigating agency. The court, after considering these authorities, directs that the petitioners appear before Jamnagar authorities for sworn statements on mutually convenient dates, with recording conducted in accordance with natural justice and the relevant Act, and without coercion. The petitions are disposed with these directions.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice
Deference to statutory authorities and non-interference with investigation processes (as articulated in Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that since the DRI operates regional units within Kerala (Cochin, Calicut, Thiruvananthapuram), there is no necessity to compel travel to Jamnagar. They argue that evidence and sworn statements can be recorded by officers in Kerala without travel burdens, especially given financial and medical constraints. They rely on the need to adhere to the Act and to the principles of natural justice, including reasonable opportunity to be heard. They refer to MEIS as a government export incentive scheme and contend the investigation should not impede legitimate business operations. They rely on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria and on Rajnishkumar Tuli and Madras High Court decisions as authority that the Court should refrain from micromanaging venue selection. They request that the court direct respondents to conduct sworn inquiries at local units or through remote means, ensuring no coercion and upholding petitioners’ rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Jamnagar has been chosen as the centre for an all-India investigation based on the Jamnagar unit’s data study and because officials there are more familiar with the background of the alleged offences. They argue that the centralised model ensures consistency and is within the statutory powers of the DRI. They emphasize that the investigation should proceed expeditiously and that the petitioners should appear before Jamnagar authorities for sworn statements. They rely on the Supreme Court’s guidance not to interfere with the functioning of statutory authorities when operations are lawful, citing Dukhishyam Benupani and subsequent decisions, including Rajnishkumar Tuli, to justify the venue choice. They assert that the venue designation is not arbitrary and that requiring presence in Jamnagar fosters uniformity and accuracy in the inquiry.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement - Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria	AIR 1998 SC 696	Positive	Cited as authority for not interfering with the investigating agency’s venue, timings, and questions, and for leaving investigation to the statutory authority when lawfully conducted.
Rajnishkumar Tuli – Proprietor and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another	MANU/GJ/7361/2007	Positive	Cited as Gujarat High Court decision endorsing non-interference with the venue of investigation.
W.P.No.30518/2018 and connected cases	W.P.No.30518/2018 (Madras High Court)	Positive	Madras High Court decision supporting the view that a team of officers can be entrusted for a study, justifying non-interference with the investigation.
WPC 39791 of 2016	WPC No. 39791 of 2016	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P13 is a copy of a judgment; referenced in the Appendix; not relied upon as binding authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S Silver Star Seafoods Ltd. and M/S InsaF Exports v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamnagar, and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/25TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **W.P(C).No.4649 OF 2019(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S.SILVER STAR SEAFOODS LTD., XI/64, ANWAR PALACE, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALLEPPEY-6888547, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. P.P. MAKKAR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SMT.R.DEVIKA SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SMT. ARYA ANIL NILOOFAR O NIZAM GOKULRAJ L** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361008.** **R1 BY SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, KERALA REGIONAL UNIT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).23453/2019(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/25TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **W.P(C).No.23453 OF 2019(F)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S.INSAF EXPORTS 4-15, PULIMUT ROAD, NEAR H.E.D OFFICE, BEYPORE P.O., CALICUT, KERALA-673 015 REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.P.UMMER KOYA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361 008.** - **2 THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361008.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, BUILDING NO.32/641 A-E, VYLOPILLY ROAD, PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.** - **4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, 16/1043-A, THYAG, FRANCE ROAD, CHALLAPURAM, CALICUT-673 002.** **R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, SC, DRI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).4649/2019(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 3 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** ## **J U D G M E N T** **[W.P(C).NO.4649/2019 & W.P(C).NO.23453/2019]** In both these writ petitions, since a common issue arises with regard to the legality of the action of the respondents in summoning the petitioners to Jamnagar in connection with an enquiry stated to have been undertaken by the respondents in relation to the export activities of the petitioners, the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are a Company and a Partnership firm respectively, engaged in the business of export of seafood. It would appear that they had exported seafood under an Expert Promotion Scheme known as “Merchandise Exports from India Scheme” [MEIS] and the exports were effected through the Calicut and Cochin Airports. The respondents initiated an investigation into the transactions effected by the petitioners, and in that connection, issued summons to the petitioners, asking them to be present before **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 4 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI], Regional Unit, Jamnagar. In the writ petitions, the petitioners impugn the notices and summons issued to them by the 2[nd] respondent in W.P.(C).No.23453/2019 inter alia on the contention that since the DRI has Regional Offices even in Cochin, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram within the State of Kerala, there was no necessity for insisting on an appearance of the petitioners before the Regional Director in Jamnagar, as the evidence required to be taken from the petitioners can be taken through the authorised Officers in the Regional Units in Kerala. The petitioners have also produced medical certificates to suggest that they are not in a position to undertake the journey to Jamnagar, for the purposes of investigation. 3. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the investigation, that was launched on an All India basis against many exporters like the petitioners, was at the instance of the Jamnagar Unit of the DRI. The said Unit has apparently undertaken a thorough research and data study for the purposes of investigation into wrongful availment of MEIS benefits through a mis-description in the shipping bills. It is stated that **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 5 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** although the DRI has an All India jurisdiction, the particular investigation was taken up by the Jamnagar Unit for the whole of India, and the investigating agency is functioning at the centralised location. It is therefore that the respondents insisted on the petitioners appearance in Jamnagar, where the investigation was initiated, since the Officers of the said Unit are more familiar with the background of the offence being investigated. The respondents would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement - Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [AIR 1998 SC 696]** to justify the summons issued to the petitioners and to point out that this Court should not interfere with the choice of venue of the investigating agency. 4. I have heard Sri.Anil D. Nair, the learned counsel fro the petitioners in both these writ petitions as also Sri.Manu.S., the learned Standing Counsel for the DRI. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of a judgment of the Supreme Court in **Dukhishyam** **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 6 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** **Benupani's case [supra],** that there is a mandate by the Supreme Court against interfering with the functions of the statutory authorities when they function in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held that it is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law, and that it must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order insulating a person from arrest would made his interrogation a mere ritual. The said view of the Supreme Court has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of various High Courts including the High Court of Gujarat in the decision reported in **Rajnishkumar Tuli** ## **– Proprietor and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another** **MANU/GJ/7361/2007** as also a recent decision of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.30518/2018 and connected cases. In the last mentioned case, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court found force in the submission of the DRI that a team of Officers had been entrusted with the study required to understand and assess a group of assessees or a specific issue and in such cases the enquiry conducted by the said Officers should not **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 7 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** be interfered with. The writ petitions were therefore disposed, directing the petitioners therein to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar for recording of sworn statements on a date mutually convenient to the petitioners as well as the officials to be fixed by the respondent by issue of a notice. Taking cue from the above decision, and finding the situation in these writ petitions to be similar, I dispose these writ petitions, by directing that the petitioners shall appear before the authorities in Jamnagar, for recording of their sworn statement on a date mutually convenient to the petitioners as well as the respondents, to be fixed by the respondents by issuance of a notice in line with the directions in this judgment. Taking note of the apprehension voiced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel Sri.Anil D. Nair, I make it clear that the process of recording the sworn statement shall be in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act. The recording of evidence shall be entirely voluntarily and without any coercion as apprehended by the petitioners. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **prp/17/10/19** **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 8 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P(C)NO.4649/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.7.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.9.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2018** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 17.12.2018** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.1.2019** **W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 9 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F NO.208/122/89-C.X6 DATED 13.10.1989 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION F.NO.207/07/2014-CX-6, DATED 20.1.2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS IN THE PROFORMA SOUGHT.** **RESPONDENTS NIL. EXHIBITS:** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.23453/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.7.2018.**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COVERING LETTER**| ||**SENT ON 31.10.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P2 (A)**|**TRUE COPY OF COURIER RECEIPT DATED 31.10.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.1.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COVERING LETTER**| ||**SENT ON 13.2.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P4 (A)**|**TRUE COPY OF COURIER RECEIPT DATED 13.2.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 21.2.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED**| ||**13.3.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 6.6.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED**| ||**12.6.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE IST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.F.NO.208/122/89-C.X6**| ||**DATED 13.10.1989.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTION F.NO.207/07/2014-CX-6,**| ||**DATED 20.1.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2016 IN**| ||**WPC NO.39791 OF 2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2019 IN WPC**| ||**NO.4649 OF 2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.9.2019 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE : NEW**| ||**DELHI.**| **EXHIBIT P16** **TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 25.09.2019.** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 04.12.2017. EXHIBIT P18 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.03.2018. EXHIBIT P19 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.05.2018. EXHIBIT P20 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.05.2018.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE**