2023 (5) TMI 991 - HC - Customs

Grant of Anticipatory bail - Smuggling - Red Sanders - prohibited item or not - mis-declaration of goods - ignorance about E-way bill or propose recipient - HELD THAT - The most import thing, according to this Court is the fact that irrespective of the fact that whether this is the case of mis-disclaration or about ignorance about E-way bill or propose recipient, the fact remains that the item which was mis-declared was red sandal logs, which has multiple uses right from uses in some common uses to use in installation of security equipment and therefore, the said item is a prohibited item for export. When the quantity of wooden logs found as mentioned in the panchnama dated 26.05.2022 is 840 wooden logs of red sandal amounting to Rs.11.70 crores, even if the consignment is cleared by the ICD, the sender of the consignment is expected at least to know the details about the proposed recipient of the E-way bills. In the instant case, the present applicant, during his response to the summons under Section 108 has pleaded complete ignorance about the proposed recipient of the red sandal logs as well as the E-way bills. Further, which shows that either the present applicant has non-cooperated or that he is hiding something. Further, as far as the submission of learned advocate Mr.Sharma about applicability of decision of Arnesh Kumar 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT is concerned, this Court is of the view that considering the sensitivity of the matter, once the present applicant who happens to be the sender of the red sandal logs, which according to Mr.Sharma is a case of mis-declaration and which is a prohibited item, even if the punishment is less than 7 years, considering the fact that quantity of red sandal logs is quite use running into 11.70 crores and is a prohibited item. The matter is required to be investigated thoroughly to reach to the roots of this entire conspiracy and therefore, also as in response to summons under section 108 of Custom Act, the present applicant has pleaded complete ignorance there is a possibility that he might be hiding something, which is very important for DRI to carry on further investigation and therefore, there are no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant as his custodial interrogation in opinion of this Court would be required. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to alleged offenses under the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the export of goods by a company, misdeclaration of goods, and the presence of prohibited items in the export consignment.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Application for Anticipatory Bail
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with an inquiry regarding the export made by the company under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant, as the authorized signatory of the company, claimed innocence stating that he was misled by a third party regarding the nature of the export goods. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued a summons to the applicant due to the discovery of prohibited red sandal logs in the export consignment.

Issue 2: Arguments Presented
The applicant's advocate argued that the responsibility for the goods shifts to the ICD once they are examined and sealed at the ICD, emphasizing that the applicant should not be held liable for any subsequent tampering with the container. In contrast, the DRI contended that the applicant's lack of knowledge about essential details such as E-way bills and the proposed recipient of the goods raised suspicions about his involvement in the misdeclaration of the export consignment.

Issue 3: Court's Decision
The Court noted the presence of red sandal logs, a prohibited item, in the export consignment and expressed concerns about the applicant's ignorance regarding crucial details. Considering the significant value of the red sandal logs and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the interim relief previously granted was vacated.

Separate Judgment by the Judge:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judge in this case.