2024 (12) TMI 748 - DSC - Customs

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - mis-declaration of imported goods - suppression of documents - HELD THAT - Prima facie from the material placed on record, the present applicant is allegedly connected with the said import of goods and also the witnesses had stated about past consignment being cleared, in which applicant had alleged nexus. If these aspects are considered, then while dealing with anticipatory bail, inference cannot be drawn that, present applicant is innocent and has no concern with the interception carried out on 29/05/2024 and 30/05/2024. The respondent on ascertaining value of the said goods, through Customs empaneled chartered engineer the value of the goods is Rs. 4,11,46,352/-. Conduct of applicant - suppression of documents - HELD THAT - The respondent had issued summons to the applicant and had demanded all related documents regarding said shipment such as, sale and purchase invoice in between M/s. ACJ Computronix and S. S. Overseas, all transactions, balance sheet, profit and loss account etc. The applicant is issued with the 7 summonses. In this regard the applicant has submitted that, he has submitted all documents - Prima facie applicant has not supplied the invoices of the transaction between his firm and M/s. S. S. Overseas. The applicant had never appeared before customs authority on the pretext of sickness, business tour etc. - the applicant had suppressed the relevant documents from the custom authority. In such circumstances, though there is no bill of entry, the applicant has alleged nexus and his custodial interrogation becomes necessary. This cannot be a ground or a plea of parity. The facts in the present matter, are entirely different and conduct of the applicant has to be kept in mind. For all these reasons, the present applicant is not entitled for further protection - bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Applicant seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving mis-declaration of imported goods and alleged nexus with the importer. Allegations of suppression of documents and non-cooperation with customs authorities.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a proprietor of a company dealing with CCTV cameras and packing material, sought anticipatory bail in a case related to the investigation of imported electrical goods by a different company. The applicant claimed innocence and argued that the actions taken against him were premature.

2. The respondent conducted a search at the applicant's premises and found cash, which the applicant explained as unrelated to the case. The applicant provided records and clarified his lack of involvement with the importing company. The respondent alleged inconsistencies in declarations and documents, indicating the applicant's knowledge of the prohibited items being imported.

3. The respondent detailed the examination of the imported goods, revealing significant mis-declaration and the involvement of the applicant in the importation process. The respondent emphasized the need for custodial interrogation due to the seriousness of the accusations and the alleged nexus between the applicant and the importer.

4. During the proceedings, the applicant highlighted the absence of a bill of entry and emphasized his cooperation with the authorities by providing necessary documents. However, the respondent pointed out discrepancies in the documents submitted and the applicant's failure to fully comply with the summons issued.

5. The court considered the evidence presented, including statements from witnesses linking the applicant to the importation process. The court noted the value of the mis-declared goods and the applicant's alleged involvement in creating a new import channel for prohibited items.

6. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had suppressed relevant documents and failed to fully cooperate with the customs authorities. Despite references to previous cases where anticipatory bail was granted, the court concluded that the applicant's conduct and the seriousness of the accusations warranted rejection of the bail application.

7. The court, therefore, rejected the bail application and directed the concerned customs authority to be informed of the decision, emphasizing that the applicant was not entitled to further protection based on the circumstances of the case. The court highlighted the need to consider the applicant's conduct and the specific details of the case rather than relying on precedents for granting bail.