Legal principle

Where the Government demonstrates that detailed action has been taken against alleged export-promotion-scheme fraud and systemic safeguards have been implemented, a public interest petition on the subject stands disposed of as its purpose is served, with any pending enquiry to be taken to its logical end expeditiously.

Court decision

The Bombay High Court disposed of the petition, holding that the purpose behind filing it stood served on account of the various safeguards implemented by the Government of India and the action taken; no further orders were passed, and it observed that any pending enquiry concerning the subject matter shall be taken to its logical end in an expeditious manner. No directions were issued to the respondents, who effectively prevailed.

Facts

A public interest litigation was filed by Shoaib alias Richie Sequeira alleging large-scale fraud in the implementation of the Duty Drawback, DEEC (Advance Licence) and EPCG schemes, specifically by M/s. Quality Exports and M/s. Quality Apparels Pvt. Ltd., and seeking affidavits on revenue loss, an independent judge-led investigation committee, and a policy on informants' rewards and protection. The Under Secretary (Drawback), Ministry of Revenue filed an affidavit-in-reply denying the petitioner's status as informer, stating the information in the case came from the Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India, Dubai. The affidavit set out detailed action taken against the concerned firms for the alleged drawback fraud and detailed steps taken by the Customs Department to prevent such frauds. It also listed safeguards under the drawback, advance licence, DEPB, EPCG and EOU/EHTP/STP schemes, and stated that Exhibit F to the petition was a list of defaulters against whom recovery action in terms of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been initiated.

Key provisions

• Section 142, Customs Act, 1962 — Recovery of sums due to Government