New Delhi: Huawei Telecommunications (India) CEO Xiongwei (David) Li has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a lookout circular (LOC) issued against him at the request of the Income Tax (IT) department.
Among the grounds listed in his petition are: lookout circular can’t be issued in non-cognisable offences, Li was never called in for questioning or issued a showcause notice, and that by preventing Li from traveling, the LOC caused a “blow” to his reputation.
The court has now directed the IT department to file its response to Li’s petition within a month, explaining why the lookout circular against him shouldn’t be quashed.
David Li, a Chinese national, was stopped from boarding a flight to Bangkok at New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport on 1 May. Appointed CEO of the Chinese telecommunication giant’s India operations in April 2020, Li was on his way to attend an official meeting.
According to Li’s petition, Principal Director, General Income Tax, had issued a showcause notice to Huawei India in February this year under section 275B of the IT Act, which is a non-cognisable offence punishable with up to two years in prison and a fine. Searches were also conducted at the offices of Huawei in Delhi, Gurugram and Bengaluru in connection with the notice at the time.
Appearing for Li before the Delhi HC, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal argued that despite repeated requests, the authorities did not furnish a reason as to why a lookout circular was issued in the Huawei executive’s name. Aggarwal said that the lookout circular had been issued for an offence which is “non-cognizable”, adding that the showcause notice issued in February was issued to the company (Huawei) and not Li individually.
ThePrint tried to reach Surabhi Ahluwalia, spokesperson for the Income Tax department, through calls and messages, to seek details of the case involving Huawei (India) CEO David Li but did not get a response until the time of filing this report. This article will be updated if a response is received.
Also Read: Did Rahul Gandhi need govt permission to attend Cambridge event? Here’s what rules for MPs say
‘Not deliberately evading arrest’
The petition filed on behalf of David Li in the Delhi HC further says guidelines for issuance of lookout circulars were not followed in his case.
“Recourse of LOC us to be taken in cognizable offences where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest,” the petition read.
In Li’s case, the petition says that he “is not deliberately evading arrest or deliberately not appearing in the trial court”, adding that he “has never been called to appear before the IT or any other officer in any other court”.
Li, who has been with Huawei since 2002, has held several leadership positions within the company. In his previous roles, he has led Huawei’s Network Solutions Sales team as Director for the Southeast Asia Region in addition to working as vice president, sales, and vice president, human resources.
But this is not the first time travel restrictions on a senior Huawei official have made headlines. In December 2018, Huawei’s chief financial officer (CFO) Meng Wanzhou was detained in Canada at the request of the US. Wanzhou was able to return to China only in September 2021 after charges of fraud against her were dropped following a deferred prosecution agreement.
Legal challenges to lookout circulars
A lookout circular (LOC) is issued to prevent an individual, wanted by any investigation agency or a bank, from leaving or entering the country through land, air or sea. While issued by the agency concerned, the LOC is executed by the Bureau of Immigration.
No advance warning is issued to the person against whom the circular is issued, like in the case of David Li who was made aware of it during security clearance at the IGI airport.
Lookout circulars have come under scrutiny by courts and in some cases, the courts have even termed them as arbitrary, issuing orders to the agencies concerned to revoke such circulars, as was the case with Aakar Patel.
In April, Aakar Patel, former chief of the India chapter of human rights outfit Amnesty International, was stopped at Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International airport and told that a lookout circular had been issued in his name at the request of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Similarly, journalist Rana Ayyub was stopped from boarding a flight to London at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International airport in March this year. Ayyub was told that an LOC had been issued in her name. The circular was later quashed by the Delhi HC.
Another case is that of Noor Paul whose name featured on a lookout circular at the request of the Bank of India over her role as guarantor for a loan procured by her father. In an order dated 5 April, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had quashed the LOC against Paul, terming it “arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution”.
The court had further instructed the respondents, including BOI and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), to serve a copy of the lookout circular to the petitioner.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Street lamps & billboards for seamless 5G connectivity? What TRAI plans with pilot study