THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20525 of 2010 Date: 07.04.2011 Between: M/s. Jasmine Bio-Technologies, rep. by is Proprietor K. Ravinder, Bollarum, Secunderabad and another. … Petitioners and Government of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20525 of 2010 ORDER : Heard Sri A. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri A. Rajasekhar, learned senior Standing Counsel for C.B. Excise appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Adinarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The 1st petitioner, who is said to be engaged in the business of import of certain products from abroad in the name and style of “M/s. Jasmine Bio-Technologies” has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in taking cheques from it allegedly under coercion, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to return the said cheques. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner imported bio-fertilizers in the brand name of “Kingbo K” from M/s. Beijing Kingbo Biotech Company Limited, China. The said import was declared on 30.6.2010 before the concerned authority. However, it appears that the Customs Officers declined to clear the import on the ground that the product imported is an insecticide, but not bio-fertilizer, therefore, the 1st petitioner is guilty of mis- declaration of the product. The 3rd respondent Senior Intelligence Officer of Revenue Intelligence issued summons to the petitioners calling upon them to produce the documents relating to the import of bio-fertilizers. Thereupon the 4th respondent Additional Director of Revenue Intelligence appears to have seized off the matter and investigation is pending. While so, the petitioners have approached this Court complaining that even before the investigation is completed, the 3rd respondent, who is only an investigating officer, yielded threat of arrest and coercion on the petitioners and compelled them to pay an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- by way of cheques (4 cheques and 2 bankers cheques). It is stated that the concerned respondent accepted the said cheques, but declined to give acknowledgements. This writ petition has been filed on the premise that the respondents have no authority of law in compelling the petitioners to make payment even without holding any enquiry and fix liability on them. It is, therefore, contended that the action of the respondents in obtaining cheques from the 1st petitioner is without any authority of law and the same are liable to be returned. 4. The 4th respondent Additional Director has filed a counter affidavit stating that even though the 1st petitioner is eligible to import bio-fertilizers, it has, in fact, imported insecticides by mis- declaring the product. As per the Foreign Trade Policy in force, an importer of insecticides must be registered under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the imported item must not be a prohibited product. It is also stated that the petitioners are not registered under the said Act and, therefore, they are not entitled to import the said product. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the product imported by the petitioners was only a pesticide and, therefore, summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioners and investigation is pending. The 4th respondent has categorically denied that the cheques were obtained from the petitioners under threat and coercion. He has also specifically stated that the petitioners, being aware of their own omissions and commissions, voluntarily submitted the post-dated cheques towards their liability that may result consequent upon the adjudication of the proceedings. Even after receipt of the said cheques, on noticing that there was no balance in the account of the petitioners, the said cheques were not presented in the bank. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioners have approached this Court to pre-empt the investigation pending against them. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the concerned authorities have seized off the matter and investigation is still pending against the petitioners as regards the product imported by them. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to express its opinion on the merits of the case. It may, however, be seen that indisputably the petitioners have issued cheques, including 2 bankers cheques, in favour of the 4th respondent and the said cheques are in his custody. It is true that the petitioners have not placed any material, much less reliable material to show that they parted with the said cheques under threat or coercion. In the light of the specific denial by the 4th respondent and in the absence of any cogent material placed on record, the allegation of the petitioners in that regard does not deserve any consideration. 6. Even otherwise, mere issuance of the alleged cheques voluntarily does not absolve the petitioners of their complicity and liability for violation of law either under the Customs Act or under the Insecticides Act. That being so, this Court is of the considered opinion that irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the threat attributed to the respondents, no useful purpose would be served by retaining the cheques with the respondents. It is always open for the respondents to conduct investigation and fix the liability, if any, on the petitioners. The retention of the cheques, in fact, would not be necessary to proceed with such investigation. 7. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) Without prejudice to the defences that may be taken by the petitioners in the investigation being conducted against them either under the Customs Act, 1962 or under other relevant provisions of law, the 4th respondent shall return the cheques bearing Nos.860402 to 860405, dated 2.8.2010, 9.8.2010, 16.8.2010 and 23.8.2010, respectively, drawn on Axis Bank to the petitioners; (ii) The 4th respondent is entitled to retain the banker’s cheques bearing Nos.093851, dated 30.7.2010 and 093997, dated 5.8.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, which shall be subject to the result of the adjudication of the matter; and (iii) The authorities concerned are at liberty to proceed with the investigation and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. 8. Subject to the above observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 07.04.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20525 of 2010 07.04.2011 (Msr)