DRI and forced 'penalty' during investigations – Sentenced before Trial!

After the ‘radiatapes’ scam, the author has to include and lookout helplessly at the bizarre actions of – media, corporate honchos, lobbyists who carry a halo around them that they are untouchable and can decide the way in which the country moves.
First, on reading the article I am tempted to believe that it is a paid article written on behalf of somebody. There are no specific instances discussed but tends to go fishing on presumed occurrences.
It is a fact that when a big corporate office, having clout, is visited by the officers of DRI, calls are made to the ‘who-is-who’ in the political spectrum and names are dropped. The ‘radiatapes’ stand testimony to this fact. In this scenario, how could one expect the DRI to mercilessly thrash the importer in the guise of interrogation? With the ‘connections’ of today’s corporate world, having a battery of ‘tax consultants’ and ‘connections’ over a wide ‘spectrum’, the allegation that the importer pays up duties fearing the highhandedness of the DRI is difficult to digest.
The DRI is no doubt a premier organisation and the pride it gives to its officers for exposing the fraud perpetuated by certain importers is a reward in itself. Getting a ‘cash reward’ is in the scheme of things. Going back in history when the ‘cash reward’ was not in vogue, DRI still registered cases and unscrupulous importers had paid duty immediately on pointing out the duty evaded.
Where does the buck stop? A very important question indeed. The article looks like it is an attempt to move things in a certain way to suit certain people. A very cynical end indeed.

addalarangadham addalarangadham 02/12/2010

 

Dear Mr. Rangadham, Mr Sachin and my netizen friends,

At the outset, thanks for the response.

Though I did restrain myself from responding, thought I should refer to few aspects for the benefits of all:

a) As an Indirect tax professional, I have been practicing since the last 8 Years. As far as advising in the subject arena is concerned it has been now, well simply put many years.

b) I have handled cases for my clients at all levels right up to the High Court and continue to do so. These involve offshoots of Audit, preventive and ultra preventive (DGCEI/DRI)

c) I do not understand which are the issues in the article brings out this temptation to believe that this is a ghost article or some absolutely rubbish perception of ‘paid article'. Though I owe no explanation to anyone,thought I would get this through for records - I have been writing with this reputed site over the last 4 years and though I may not be as prolific as my other netizen friends, the article is my creation written with "hands on experience" stories and definitely not "ghost written".

d) What does one mean by citing specific instances – Will Mr Ranghadham change his views if specific examples are cited, names taken – will that then not be a ‘paid article’ or ‘ghost written one’. Will it help my clients to undo the events that have occurred – Will the netizens seek justice and ensure that they render the same? For sake of argument is ‘legalnovice’ also been paid to write the few words of facts pertaining to Bangalore Air customs? I do not know the face and name before the userid, but the fact is there is some one who has subscribed to this view.

e) Those who know the functioning of DRI will vouch for what I have said, if not for the language used. There may not be many voices when it comes to the said organisation, but fact is a fact. It cannot be brushed below the carpet only because of its holier than cow image.

f) Just to take the discussion forward, its not about cases been booked or not. The organisation has made good detection in the past and would continue to do so. The issue is not about detection or booking cases, its about the means adopted for investigations-easy one to be thrash the ‘accused’ to submission. There are horror tales to this. PERIOD. The general trend is what I have captured and let there be no two words on that. On reading this article, a very dear friend of mine, Ex DRI called me up to say and I quote “Madam, I worked for three years in the organisation, solved cases, completed investigations without a single abusive word , leave aside the policeman measures referred to”. Fair enough, I said, there are exceptions, but I stand by what I said – the general rule is investigation in DRI is the jabs and the punches, it is that way and ask those who have gone through his ordeal even on the perception that they are involved in some case of duty evasioin. Send quite a few of these super ones to the Olympics and be sure for a medal in the boxing arena.

g) There is a very casual remark of the article written to suit certain people? Which certain people does the above refer to? If this is not presumption and braying in the dark, what is? Lets be candid. If there are no vested interests within the set up, then why are the same faces lined up in the organisation for years together. How and why do they get extensions, are they no replacements, why do the select champs continue to come back with consummate ease, whats so special that they do not want to work in the so called non sensitive posts in the offices of central excise and service tax. If the powers that are and be , are ready to do a soul searching and a statistical diagnosis of the above, the facts will picture the reality. Any takers?

h) DRI is a premier institution and therefore its sanctity should be maintained. But is that the case. Please do not refer to only cases getting booked and investigations closing at the moment long stories are written down in the statements leading to voluminous show cause notice. Look at the quality of some of the show cause notices, the content et al. If it was not for the Settlement Commission, forced penalty payments upfront, the cases would be lost clearly at the courts simply because it lacks the content that is required.

i) Honestly don’t know what Radiatapes have got to do in this article even remotely. Too much of reading into scams makes most of us cynical and I think this is a classic case. Leave it to netizens to judge.

j) Thanks Sachin for acknowledging that there are issues which are generally spoken about in hushed tones. And please let me clarify again much against my natural instincts – This is no ghost writing and I need not have to do so – there is no agenda per se to do that. The idea of this article is no whistle blowing. I have seen the system long enough to know what could impact and whom and what is required for that. The idea was throw open to debate that should not the premier investigative agency come out of with transparency and start getting a more professional touch rather than its time tested measures which has in case been discussed.

Thanks. We could interact further on this subject matter, may be off line.

Regards

Advocate Padmini

padmini sundaram 02/12/2010