2021 (2) TMI 389 - HC - Customs

Grant of Bail - Evasion of Customs Duty - undervaluation of imported goods - fabricated invoices - circular No.28/2015 dated 23.10.2015 - HELD THAT - From the record it appears that the allegations of evasion of huge amount of customs duty have been levelled against the applicants as according to the respondent actual value of goods imported by undervaluation on the basis of using fabricated invoices is 11, 93, 03, 316/- and the value of miss-declared goods is around 1, 07, 29, 025/- whereas the quantum of customs duty is 7, 22, 00, 000/-. This Court is of the considered opinion that since the charge is yet to be filed and one of the accused persons namely Uttam is still at large it would not be appropriate for this Court to release the applicant at this stage of investigation - This Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage no case for grant of bail is made out. However the applicants are at liberty to renew their prayer after the charge sheet is filed. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Applicants seeking bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences under Customs Act and IPC.

Analysis:
1. The applicants are accused of wide-scale duty evasion by undervaluing imported goods and forming a dummy firm for the purpose. Significant amounts of unaccounted money were seized from the applicants during a search, and their statements admitted to the offences.

2. The Senior Counsel for the applicants argued that they have already deposited a substantial sum with the respondent, making the alleged offences bailable under Sections 104 and 135 of the Act. The value of goods and duty involved falls below the specified thresholds for bailable offences.

3. The respondent opposed bail, citing the applicants' history of habitual offences and a separate case of duty evasion registered against them in another zone. The actual values of undervalued goods and duty evasion were presented, along with the non-cooperation of the applicants with the investigating agency.

4. Concerns were raised about potential Hawala transactions facilitated by an absconding accused, and the systematic undervaluation of goods by the applicants, forming a prima facie case for evasion of duty and forgery.

5. The Senior Counsel highlighted that the case involves alleged evasion of duty exceeding a certain threshold, making it bailable under Section 104. He argued that the arrests were made in violation of government circulars and that the case hinges on documentary evidence yet to be adjudicated by the Customs Department.

6. The court noted the gravity of the allegations, the absence of a charge sheet, and the fugitive status of an accused person. Considering these factors and the non-compoundable nature of the IPC offences, the court denied bail at the current stage but allowed the applicants to renew their prayer after the charge sheet is filed.

7. The court dismissed the application for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, with the possibility of revisiting the bail request after further developments in the case.