2009 (7) TMI 822 - HC - Customs

Fraudulent drawback benefits misdeclaration the goods - in order to avail higher ineligible drawback incentive - dummy invoices for which no goods were supplied Held that - witnesses clearly established the intention to defraud the government by inflating the price and claiming higher drawback benefits - cross-examination of witnesses had clearly showed that there is a prima facie case of fraudulent availment of drawback benefits which is not actually due to him - Petition is not maintainable and hence is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction for Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain discharge petition. Allegation of failure to consider discharge petition. Return of discharge petition due to procedural reasons. Prosecution's contention of fraudulent export and misdeclaration. Prima facie case of fraudulent availment of drawback benefits. Dismissal of Criminal Original Petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking direction for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the discharge petition in a case where the petitioner was accused of misdeclaration and false declaration under various sections of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act. The petitioner alleged that the discharge petition filed by him and other accused was not considered by the Magistrate, leading to charges being framed against them without due process. The petitioner argued that the reasons for returning the discharge petition, such as lack of notice to the public prosecutor, were not substantial enough to warrant its return, and the lower court's actions denied the rights of the accused.

The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the first accused in the case had engaged in fraudulent export practices to obtain higher drawback benefits by misdeclaring goods and inflating their value. Witness statements and evidence indicated a scheme to defraud the government by falsely claiming higher incentives. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case of fraudulent availment of benefits and rejected accusations of hastiness in dictating the charges. The prosecution highlighted the involvement of the accused in similar offenses and presented multiple witnesses and documents to support their case.

After considering the facts and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court concluded that the prosecution's case needed to be tried, leading to the dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition. The Court found the petition not maintainable, resulting in its dismissal and the closure of the connected Miscellaneous Petition.