2024 (8) TMI 160 - DSC - Customs

Seeking anticipatory bail - smuggling of Arecanuts - actual importer of goods - initiation of investigation though there was no bill of entry and the goods landed at JNPT were meant for ICD Tughlakabad - need of custodial interrogation - HELD THAT - It is a fact that, Arecanuts worth Rs.5 Croer and more were found in the containers which were intercepted. But the present applicant neither filed the bill of entry nor has claimed the goods. The goods were to be destined at Custom Office, Tughlabad. Prima facie the action initiated by Customs is based on probability, as in the reply itself it is stated that, it appears that, the applicant is involved in smuggling of Arecanuts. In such circumstances, more particularly when the goods are already seized and are in possession of respondents, there is no need of custodial interrogation. The applicant can be directed to cooperate with the respondent and visit their office in presence of his advocate at a visible distance and not at audible distance, as laid down by the Hon ble Parent High Court in case of Manishbhai Nareshbhai Saini. In the event of arrest, the applicant/ accused Vimal Kumar be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- - Applicant/accused to attend the office of Customs on every second and fourth Monday of the month from 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. for two months from today and thereafter, as and when called by the Customs Authority - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Application for anticipatory bail in a case related to suspected smuggling of goods without filing a bill of entry.
- Interpretation of statutory provisions and legal precedents regarding the filing of a bill of entry in customs matters.
- Justification for granting anticipatory bail based on lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged smuggling activity.
- Conditions imposed on the applicant upon granting anticipatory bail to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Analysis:

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the suspected smuggling of goods without filing a bill of entry. The applicant entered into a contract for the sale and supply of Bitumen Grade 60/70 material, but it was discovered that the supplier had sent the wrong goods. The investigation by the Special Intelligence Officer revealed that containers intercepted at the port contained undeclared Arecanut/Beetlenut/Supari instead of the declared goods. The value of the seized Arecanuts was substantial, leading to suspicions of smuggling.

The applicant argued that there was no prima facie case necessitating custodial interrogation and cited legal precedents to support the request for anticipatory bail. The respondent opposed bail, alleging the applicant's involvement in smuggling based on statements and evidence gathered during the investigation. The applicant emphasized the absence of a bill of entry and challenged the premature actions of the Customs Authority.

The court analyzed the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, defining import, imported goods, and importer. It highlighted the significance of filing a bill of entry for completing the importation process. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized the crucial role of filing a bill of entry as the dutiable event in customs matters. The court found that the absence of a filed bill of entry rendered the Customs Authority's actions premature and lacked sufficient evidence to connect the applicant to the smuggling activity.

Considering the circumstances and legal arguments presented, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The court imposed conditions, including a bail amount, regular visits to the Customs office, cooperation with the investigation, and restrictions on influencing prosecution witnesses. The court directed the applicant to inform the concerned authority and cooperate with the investigation officer, emphasizing the need for compliance with the imposed conditions to maintain the granted bail status.