DRI official held for asking Rs 50 lakh as graft – Tribune News Service – New Delhi, September 19, 2005.

May 30, 2006

DRI official held for asking Rs 50 lakh as graft – Tribune News Service – New Delhi, September 19, 2005.

MR. S.K. SINHA, THE J.D., DRI TOOK MANY FAVOURS FROM ME -LIKE HE USED MY ZEN CAR FOR HIS BROTHER, MR. BRENAY SINHA FROM 14/05/2003 FOR ABOUT A MONTH, AND THE DRIVER AND CAR WERE GOING DAILY TO HIS BROTHER'S HOUSE AT – NO. 2, ESI HOSPITAL CAMPUS, SECTOR 15, ROHINI. TEL. # 98-182-28729. THIS WAS ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF A PRESENT DAY s.i.o IN THE DRI, I WILL DISCLOSE PROOFS AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME.

LIES OF DRI AND THE FACTS

I did not accede to the demand of bribe of DRI officials made through their touts and on 14th Oct., 2003, complained to the M.O.S. for Finance, the Chairman, CBEC, and others about this extortion threat (Annexure 1). I believe that the officers behind the threat were:-

 

1)                Mr. Nitish Birdi, Deputy Director, DRI.

2)               
Mr. S.C. Ganger, Deputy Director, DRI.

3)                Mr. S.K. Sinha, Joint Director, DRI,

4)                Mr. R.K. Singh, Addl. Director General, DRI,

5)                Mr. S.S. Rana – the Customs official. Posted in Moscow 2003-2004.

 

As a result of my complaint, they became more furious, and not only did they raid my residence and office they also manhandled me. They took away many items from my residence and office, without even mentioning in the Panchnama – a flagrant violation of Law. In my letter (annexure 2), I protested the unauthorized seizure without a mention in the Panchnama.

 

I started following up my complaint with the senior officers of the revenue ministry. To cover up for their lapses, they leveled false and unsubstantiated allegations against me. Can you believe that they even went to the extent of filing false affidavits in the courts?

 

 

Lies of the DRI

My Explanation

1.

That my foreign buyers did not exist.

To support their claim, they have referred to a letter dt. 29.04.2004 received from the Indian embassy official in
Moscow, Mr. S.S. Rana (on deputation from the customs department)  (Annexure 3).

 

Contrary to Mr. S.S. Rana’s letter, my buyers very much existed in
Russia, as is clear from the Russian customs letter (Annexure 4 & 5), Mr. Rana’s letter appears to be with malicious intentions as it appears that it is based on a fictitious letter said to have been received from the Russian customs.

My buyer’s existence is clear from the aforesaid Russian custom’s letter. The letter clearly states that my buyer, Europa Torg, existed since 1998.

Other buyers have also sent me documentary evidences in support of their existence and import activities since 1998, and those evidences were given to DRI in 2003, and 2004.

DRI has neither any substantial proof of non-existence of my buyers, nor any conclusive proof of diversion of goods. They have based their charges on hearsay alone. Though I am not required, as per  law, to respond to charges based merely on hearsay, still I have produced enough evidence to prove existence of buyers and delivery of goods into Russia

 

2.

They had filed false affidavits in the court that they had never issued any red alert to any customs authority against registration of my DEPB licences, etc. (Annexure 6)

 

DRI had issued red alert notice to various customs posts, as is clear from the letter of the Asstt. Commr. Of Customs (Annexure 7).

I had placed this fact on record in my rejoinder in the
Delhi High Court case no. W.P. (Crl.) 832/2004 and my lawyers are looking into the possibility of filing a perjury case against the erring officials of the DRI before an appropriate court.

 

3.

That my exported goods never entered
Russia.

To support their claim they have relied upon :

a) the letter of Mr. S.S. Rana, that my buyers did not exist, as pointed in point 1, above.

b) Statements taken under         duress stating that goods reached
Finland (and assumed by DRI that they never entered
Russia).

c)
Finland carrier (shipment handler / transporter) could not be contacted, just because e-mails supposedly sent from the personal e-mail I.D. of the officer did not go through.(Annexure 8)

All my exported goods meant for Russia had entered Russia, as is evident from the letter of Russian customs (Annexure 9), letter from the forwarding agents of Finland (Annexure 10), and letter of the Finland Customs (Annexure 11).

a)    Already explained in point no. 1 above.

b)    Letter of
Finland Cutoms deptt. Annexed as page 615, 616 & 617 to the SCN clearly states that all my enquired shipments have entered
Russia. And DRI has, for reasons best known to them enquired about some of the shipments, as mentioned in annexure 12, as ours, while in fact those were never my exports. Some of the shipments that they have enquired from
Finland were actually sent through SAM Aviation, whose fight was operated by Eastline, and ended in
Russia
. (Certificate enclosed).

c)     The e-mail appears to have been manipulated in such a way that it did not reach the company in Finland, as is evident from the letter submitted by the carrier with the Indian Embassy in Helsinki as per legal procedure, clearly stating that they had carried all the shipments into Russia. (Annexure 13), and there was no diversion of goods.

 

4.

That I engaged in money laundering.

They have relied upon unsubstantiated statements extracted from my ex-employees.

 

All the statements were taken in typical DRI style under duress. Employees don’t have the capacity to withstand the 3rd degree interrogation, and they have nothing to lose by making a false statement as per the convenience of the DRI officials. There is no evidence of money laundering.

This is particularly false because all the shipments being referred to by DRI were done against Letters of credit issued by the apex bank of Russia, BFFEA, and the payments having been received through the apex bank of India, the RBI.

 

5.

That I shipped out goods from
India before the opening of the L.C., which according to DRI is not permitted by RBI as per FERA regulations

Shipment of goods before the registration of the L.C. was not always done, and in all the cases, it was approved by the RBI, post-export. This was primarily done for commercial reasons, and it never caused any loss to India, if the goods were exported before the date of registration of L.C., information was always provided to the RBI in the claim form sent to them, and in most of the cases, I obtained specific permission from the RBI (that file was seized by the DRI on 15th Oct., 2003). I am attaching herewith copies of similar permissions given to other exporters (Annexure 14, 15).

6.

That signatures on some of my bank realization certificates (BRC’s) pertaining to export proceeds were not those of the bank officers (and as such the bank realization certificates were forged). And since these certificates were forged, Duty drawback was not admissible on the same.

 

As regards the BRC’s, said to have been forged, even the DRI official, Mr. B.K. Thaplial agreed in the court of ASJ, New Delhi that all the contents of the said BRC’s were correct, and that all the export proceeds have been in received through banking channels. The BRC is not an essential document for claiming Duty Drawback, and it was only for our records that we obtained it from the bank, to be showed to any Govt. department, as and when required. However truth about the signatures can be found out only after a thorough enquiry, and I have in no way benefited on account of the said difference in signatures. The enquiry should ascertain weather the export proceeds were credited in my bank account or not, and weather the same were received through regular and approved banking channels or not. If I am not benefiting in any way by forging the BRCs then why would I do that?

 

Vindictive and damaging attitude of the DRI officials is evident from the following:-

 

1)  They seized my original unrealized export documents, which has caused me a direct loss of more than Rs. 4 crores.

·        Despite the High Court orders dated 24.11.2004, to return the documents, the documents were not retuned (Annexure  ).

·        DRI gave an undertaking before the hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
on 24.11.2004 (Annexure 16) that they will return the original documents within a fortnight STILL they did not return the documents. My lawyers are exploring the possibility of filing a contempt of Court case before the hon’ble High Court.

 

2)  I had plans to go to
Italy on 16th Oct., 2003
(Annexure 12) and since the DRI was tapping my phone, they knew that I was scheduled to leave. They raided my premises and prevented me from traveling. Their action was merely to cause me a substantial business loss as I had plans to set up a factory for producing high quality knitwear produced on machines imported from
Italy.

 

3)  I traveled to the
US on 15/01/2004. Since I was following up on my charges against the DRI officers even from
USA, DRI, in order to arrest me on arrival, issued a red alert at all the entry points in
India. I came to know of it, and to protect my life, postponed my return, and it was only after
Delhi High Court’s intervention and relief (Annexure 17), that I returned on 21st May, 2004. I appeared in the court of the ACMM,
New Delhi
, and was granted regular bail. The DRI requested for the seizure of my passport. Their request was turned down by the learned ACMM. More than 13 DRI officers, including Mr. Nitish Birdi, Mr. Parashar, Mr. B.K. Thaplial, Mr. Sharma (Driver), Mr. Vinod were present inside the court. It appears that there were also some professional goons with them. Before I could sign the bail bond, the DRI officials and their goons tried to physically kidnap me from the within the courtroom so that I can’t sign the bail bond. I was dragged for a long distance. Luckily for me the lawyers present in the court decided to protect me and the LAW and intervened. DRI officials couldn’t take me away but I suffered severe injuries in the process. I went to hospital for treatment and got a Medical report, the same is attached (Annexure 18).

4)    They seized and destroyed all the vital business data pertaining to the past 18 years, since I started the business activities, contained in one of my office computers. At that time, I was in
USA
. The officer who made the seizure reported that the computer contained “incriminating data” (copy of Panchnama attached as annexure). Later DRI has claimed that we had punctured the Hard disc of the computer. How is it possible for someone to puncture the hard disc when they have seized it with “incriminating data”? When I went to give my statement to DRI office, Mr. B.K. Thaplial, mockingly told me that they had punctured the disc. He said that I will soon know the consequences of my filing complaints against DRI officials.  He also told me to assess the loss to my business I will never be able to recover that data. He also told me that if I didn’t mend my ways then he and Mr. Nitish Birdi will ensure that my other computers also meet the same fate before being returned to me.

5)    DRI officials have treated all my business associates so badly and even before I am convicted, they have dubbed me as “having committed an export fraud”, and have beaten up my business associates, and suppliers, thereby causing me an irreparable damage (Annexure )

6)    DRI had issued red alert notice against me, which has not been withdrawn till date, and is posing a hindrance in issuance of fresh passport, which is lying ready in Delhi passport office since Oct., 2004.

7)    Although the DRI investigation was over in December 2004, when they issued show cause notice to me, they have not returned any of the material seized from my office till date, which posed problems in settling the matters with other departments like Income Tax., Sales Tax, Provident Fund, E.S.I, and payments to the suppliers, and realization from buyers. During the investigation also, they created all kinds of problems, and as a result a demand of Rs. 18 crores was raised by the Income tax department against me.

8)    DRI officials lied to the Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments also, as a result of which they too had started proceedings against me.

 

In spite of all this, I cooperated with their investigation, as and when required, and when they could not make a case against me, and were feeling insecure because of the lies told to everybody against me., and also when their arrest order was stayed by the order of the High Court (Annexure 19), they managed an order of preventive detention under COFEPOSA  against me. The said order is  based on  the lies and twisting of facts as explained above. The main motive of this order is to silence my voice once and for all, as has happened earlier also in several cases.

 

It is a case of subjective investigation, and not an objective investigation. The DRI officials had decided the results of the investigation, even before it was started.

Customs Notification (NT) No- 60/2005 dated 20.7.2005
CBEC appoints Adjudicating Authorities for many cases in Delhi

G.S.R. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, to act as, –

(i) Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi;

(ii) Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Nhava Sheva;

(iii) Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore; and

(iv) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai,

for the purposes of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s Lindt Export and M/s High Tech Engineers, A-1/21, Janakpuri, New Delhi and Others, issued, vide, DRI F.No.50C/19/2003-CI, dated the 24th December, 2004, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, ‘D’ Block, I.P. Bhawan, 7th Floor, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
 

[F.NO.437/3/2005-CUS.IV]

(ANUPAM PRAKASH)
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

NEVER LOSE YOUR HONOR BY PAYING BRIBES, AND DON'T BUDGE BEFORE THE EXTORTIONIST OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

THE DRI OFFICIALS TRIED TO KIDNAP AND MURDER ME INSIDE THE COURT PREMISES IN NEW DELHI, BUT WAS SAVED BY LAWYERS PRESENT OVER THERE. THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE OF NEW DELHI ORDERED THE POLICE TO MAKE AN INQUIRY AND THE NEW DELHI POLICE REGISTERED A CASE ON 24TH MAY, 2004 ITSELF, AND THE OFFENCES OF THE DRI OFFICIALS WERE NON-BAILABLE, AND HAD IT BEEN AN ORDINARY PERSON, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN JAILED, BUT IT IS THE BEAURUCRATIC AFFINITY, WHICH GAVE THEM ALL IMMUNITY, AND ON THE CONTRARY, THE SAME DRI OFFICIALS LODGED A COUNTER FIR ON 27TH MAY, 2004, AND THE POLICE ARE HARRASSING THE WITNESSES – IS IT DEMOCRACY?

MY ADVICE – DON'T SUBMIT TO THE CORRUPT – BE BOLD, TRUTH WINS IN THE END – JAI BHARAT

Advertisements