2019 (11) TMI 1284 - DSC - Customs

Grant of Bail - offence punishable u/s.135 (1)(a), 135 (1)(b) and 135 (1) (A) r/w. 104 of the Customs Act 1962 - smuggling - valuable wrist watches brought from Bangkok - case of Revenue is that the said wrist watch has been brought by the applicant by non declaring and evading the custom duty chargeable on it - HELD THAT - Section 135 of Customs Act states that any person, in relation to any goods in any way mainly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at the evasion of any duty chargeable thereon shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine. In the case of offence relating to any goods is the market price of which exceeds ₹ 1 crore. The wrist watch found in the possession of the applicant that has been seized by the AIU officer. The statement of the applicant u/s. 108 of the Customs Act has been recorded. Applicant alongwith application filed receipt Ex.A. of seized watch. It appears from the receipts, the value of watch is US 13,895.00 below ₹ 10 lakhs. Except say AIU has not filed any documentary evidence about the value of Wrist watch is ₹ 2,71,89,000/-, Therefore, primafacie receipt disclosed value of watch is below ₹ 10 lakhs - As per the provisions the good value below ₹ 1 crore imported by evading the tax, the offence punishable under this Act is bailable. Since 16.10.2019 he is in JC. In such circumstances, there is no need to keep the applicant behind bar. The applicant Kavinkumar Chandresh Mehta shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed - application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. based on Customs Act offense.

Analysis:
The applicant was arrested for offenses under sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), and 135(1)(A) of the Customs Act 1962. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, arriving from Bangkok, was found with a wristwatch valued at over &8377; 1 crore, seized for evasion of duty. The applicant claimed innocence, stating the watch was for a friend, and he had no role in any smuggling activities. The AIU objected to bail, citing ongoing investigation and the high value of the watch. The court considered the Customs Act provisions, noting the offense's severity based on the value of the goods involved.

The court analyzed the Customs Act sections 132 and 135, outlining penalties for false declarations and duty evasion. It noted that involvement in fraudulent evasion of duty could lead to imprisonment up to seven years for goods exceeding &8377; 1 crore in value. The court reviewed the evidence, including the watch's receipt showing a value below &8377; 10 lakhs, contrary to the AIU's claim. Considering the bailable nature of offenses involving goods valued below &8377; 1 crore, the court granted bail, emphasizing the lack of need to detain the applicant since his arrest in October 2019.

The court granted bail to the applicant with conditions, including executing a personal bond, attending AIU office weekly, cooperating with investigations, surrendering the passport, and refraining from influencing witnesses. The provisional cash bail was set at &8377; 50,000, subject to cancellation for non-compliance. The court's decision balanced the seriousness of the offenses with the applicant's right to bail, ensuring compliance with stringent conditions to address the prosecution's concerns of evidence tampering.