9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 660 - HC - CustomsGrant of Anticipatory bail - import and trade of agricultural and other allied products including spices - mis-declaration of consignment as coconut expeller cake rendering the goods liable for confiscation - offence under Section 135 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - The investigation of the case is still progressing and the applicants have not yet been made accused. Until a complaint is filed, the person against whom the enquiries commenced under the Customs Act does not stand in the character of a person accused of an offence under Section 135. In Padam Narain's 2008 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that the power to arrest a person by a Customs Officer is statutory in character and cannot be interfered with. Referring to Section 108 of the Customs Act, it was held that Section 108 does not contemplate magisterial intervention. The power is exercised by a Gazetted Officer of the Department. It obliges the person summoned to state truth upon any subject with respect to which he is examined. He is not absolved from speaking truth on the ground that such statement is admissible in evidence and could be used against him. The fact that the applicants have been summoned by the 2nd respondent a number of times under Section 108 and that their statements were recorded, by itself would not entail them to seek anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail is still premature and the applicants are therefore not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Bail application dismissed.
Issues:
- Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Allegation of mis-declaration of imported goods leading to potential arrest. - Interpretation of Section 108 of the Customs Act regarding magisterial intervention. - Comparison of past legal precedents with the current case. - Determination of the premature nature of the anticipatory bail application. Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The applicants sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for alleged mis-declaration of imported goods. The applicants, engaged in importing agricultural products, were summoned and their statements recorded. The applicants approached the High Court after a Sessions Court dismissal, citing the possibility of arrest under the Customs Act. 2. Allegation of Mis-Declaration: The DRI alleged that the applicants imported Arecanuts mis-declared as coconut expeller cake, violating the Customs Act. The Central Government Counsel (CGC) argued that the goods were concealed in containers, imported illegally, and liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, valuing at ?1.47 crores each. The CGC relied on legal precedents to oppose anticipatory bail. 3. Interpretation of Section 108: The CGC contended that Section 108 of the Customs Act does not allow magisterial intervention, emphasizing the purpose of eliciting truth during questioning. The Court highlighted that statements under Section 108 are different from police investigations, following past judgments to support the interpretation. 4. Comparison with Legal Precedents: The applicants' counsel argued that past cases cited by the CGC were distinguishable, emphasizing the applicants' cooperation with authorities and the amendment to Section 104 of the Customs Act. The Court noted the differences in circumstances and legal implications between the cited cases and the current situation. 5. Determination of Premature Bail Application: After considering both sides, the Court found that the investigation was ongoing, and the applicants were not yet accused. Referring to legal precedents, the Court held that until a complaint is filed, the applicants could not seek anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that the applicants' fear of arrest was premature, denying the anticipatory bail application. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the ongoing investigation, lack of formal accusations, and the statutory framework of the Customs Act regarding the applicants' situation.
|
