2009 (7) TMI 890 - HC - Customs

Fraudulent import - Revenue Intelligence an intelligence was received by the Officers of DRI indicating fraudulent importers are importing super bikes in India by first disassembling them abroad and importing the said disassembled bikes in consignments by declaring them as spare parts - value of the imported bikes which are till date connected to the applicant though are tentatively valued at Rs. 50 lacs it cannot be lost sight of the fact that as yet investigation is not over and hence gravity of the offence cannot be judged at this stage. Having regard to the fact that a racket is operating which is resulting in causing loss of revenue to the Government by evasion of customs duty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a fit case for release of the applicant on bail. In the result application stands rejected.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, in the 2009 case of A.P. Deshpande, J., considered an appeal involving fraudulent importation of super bikes into India. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence that importers were disassembling bikes abroad, importing them as spare parts, reassembling them in India, and evading customs duties. The importers registered the bikes at various RTO offices using fictitious and forged documents. The investigation revealed that around 630 super bikes were registered with various RTOs, with customs duty evaded to the tune of over Rs. 30 crores. The respondent connected the applicant to at least three imported bikes through five bills of entry. The applicant claimed the imports were made by his deceased employee. The respondent recorded statements from the deceased employee's father and a customs clearing agent, corroborating the applicant's involvement. The applicant argued for bail, citing the low value of the bikes imported and the ongoing investigation. However, the court denied bail, considering the gravity of the offense and the potential for influencing others and tampering with evidence. The application for bail was rejected. The judgment underscores the importance of preventing revenue loss due to customs duty evasion and the need to maintain the integrity of the investigation process.