2016 (8) TMI 833 - HC - Customs

Modification of bail conditions - offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 requirement of marking presence in the court every month twice travel abroad without permission Held that - the offence is compoundable. Other requirements like deposit of amount required by court duly fulfilled. The matter is now pending before the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise at Mumbai. Communication dated 20.07.2016 of the said Commission, inter alia records that, ...In other words, customs officers will have no jurisdiction over the subject case until an order is passed under sub-section 5 of Section 127 C of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Settlement Commission. The applicant has, after his release, traveled abroad more than once, with the permission of the Court below and each time he has returned in time and has surrendered back his passport. Thus, now no purpose would be served by still continuing the conditions that the applicant shall leave the country only with the permission of the Court, and further that he needs to attend the customs office every month, for the purpose of marking his presence bail conditions modified application allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Application for modification of conditions of bail in a case related to alleged offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The applicant sought modification of bail conditions due to being a senior functionary needing to travel abroad for business purposes frequently. The alleged offence was compoundable, and the matter was pending before the Settlement Commission at Mumbai. The applicant had complied with the conditions set by the court, including surrendering his passport after each trip abroad. The tax liability and penalty amount were secured as per the department's requirements. The applicant requested the return of his passport and deletion of the condition requiring monthly presence at the customs office.

The court acknowledged that the alleged offence was compoundable, the department's requested amount was paid with interest, and additional directed funds were with the department. The matter was pending before the Settlement Commission in Mumbai, limiting the jurisdiction of customs officers. The applicant had a history of complying with bail conditions, traveling abroad with court permission, and returning as required. Considering these factors, the court found no need to continue the conditions restricting the applicant's travel and monthly customs office attendance.

Consequently, the court allowed the application for modification of bail conditions. The previous order requiring monthly customs office attendance and permission to travel abroad was quashed and set aside. The applicant was no longer obligated to seek court permission for international travel or attend the customs office monthly. The court made the rule absolute and permitted direct service of the order.