2021 (10) TMI 773 - HC - Customs

Grant of anticipatory bail - 39,60,000 Cigarettes - illegal clearance of consignment - consignment was cleared manually without making any entry by the Customs Department - HELD THAT - This Court finds that it is very strange and surprising that 02 Departments i.e. Department of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana respondent No.1 and Anti-Evasion Unit, Central Goods Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana respondent No.2, are fighting tooth and nail regarding fixing the liability as to how the consignment was cleared manually without making any entry by the Customs Department and as per stand of the Customs Department, there is a collusion of the official of the CGST Department with the petitioner and the other accused and in that process, the CGST Department is posing the petitioner as a Secret Informer/Source and has even filed a Secret Note under the signatures of Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, giving a clean chit to the petitioner Sunil Dutt. Taking note of the tardy, casual and irresponsible attitude of both the departments, this is deemed to be a fit case where the matter needs to be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for conducting further investigation of the case and fix liability of the erring official(s) - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2. Allegations of customs duty evasion.
3. Petitioner's role as a registered informer for GST.
4. Conflicting claims between the Customs Department and CGST Department.
5. Referral to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving offenses under Sections 135, 135-A, 132, and other sections of the Customs Act. The earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 09.09.2021. The petitioner argued that he was merely a liaison officer and had no direct involvement in the alleged customs duty evasion. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the Customs Department despite multiple notices and instead sought anticipatory bail, which was not maintainable as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, where it was held that granting bail at the stage of notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act would amount to a blanket bail.

2. Allegations of customs duty evasion:
The petitioner was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to evade customs duty, resulting in a financial loss of approximately ?2.98 crores to the State Exchequer. The Customs Department alleged that the petitioner, along with other officials, facilitated the illegal clearance of a consignment containing 39,60,000 cigarettes without paying customs duty. The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated and that he had informed the GST Department about the illegal consignment.

3. Petitioner's role as a registered informer for GST:
The petitioner claimed to be a registered informer for the GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, and had helped in unearthing several scams and GST evasion cases. He argued that his role as an informer led to the interception of the consignment by the Preventive Wing of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana. A secret note from the Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, confirmed that the petitioner was a secret informer whose information led to the confiscation of the consignment.

4. Conflicting claims between the Customs Department and CGST Department:
The Customs Department and CGST Department presented conflicting claims regarding the petitioner's involvement. The Customs Department accused the petitioner of colluding with officials to clear the consignment illegally, while the CGST Department supported the petitioner's claim of being an informer who provided crucial information leading to the interception of the consignment. The court noted the surprising and strange situation where two departments were fighting over fixing liability instead of cooperating.

5. Referral to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation:
Given the conflicting claims and the serious nature of the allegations, the court found it appropriate to refer the matter to the CBI for further investigation. The court directed that an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report within 30 days. The petitioner and both departments were instructed to provide all relevant documents to the CBI. The court emphasized the need for cooperation from both the Customs and CGST Departments and set the next hearing date for 13.12.2021.

Conclusion:
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed due to non-maintainability and serious allegations of financial loss to the State Exchequer. The matter was referred to the CBI for further investigation to resolve the conflicting claims between the Customs and CGST Departments.