2024 (12) TMI 1250 - DSC - Customs

Application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure - delay in prosecution and filing of the complaint - prosecuting agency DRI seeks to bring on record several bill of entries under the heading index - Import duty evasion - HELD THAT - The Court takes into consideration that this is the second application under section 311 of Cr.P.C, however same is also being read with Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and while such occasion was not availed of earlier on behalf of the DRI is still speculative. The arguments of the Ld. Senior Counsel that the data uploaded over computer are confidential and cannot be procured or accessed without the permission of the Court does not seems to inspire confidence, as these are already seized by the DRI as per their own version. There is no reason why such opportunity was not grabbed at the very first instance when the complaint case was filed by DRI after 17 years of the alleged occurrence - the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is inordinate delay in filing the present case is not sustainable in view that there is no limitation qua taking cognizance qua economic offence. This Court is of the opinion that the application is allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid in DLSA by the DRI. It is clarified herein, that the department has to deduct the amount from the responsible officer for such lapse as since the cost is being imposed upon the State/ Department of State, it cannot be the case that the same be burden upon Exchequer. It is also not appreciated that though Sr. Counsel had submitted that physical copies is already seized by the Department and department could not lay his hand over such documents, and therefore Computer Copies from the database is required. Application stands allowed as the document is relevant for the adjudication the case and in particular, regarding the input qua thickness of item (i.e. 0.6 mm), subject to payment of cost within one month.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for taking on record several bills of entry.
2. Allegations of import duty evasion by the accused due to false declaration of goods' thickness.
3. Delay in prosecution and filing of the complaint by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
4. Admissibility and relevance of electronic evidence and seized documents.
5. Imposition of costs on the DRI for procedural lapses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.:
The prosecution agency, DRI, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to bring on record several bills of entry. These documents are crucial for establishing the alleged misrepresentation of goods' thickness by the accused, which led to import duty evasion. The court considered this application as it was the second one under the same section, acknowledging that earlier opportunities to present these documents were not utilized by the DRI.

2. Allegations of Import Duty Evasion:
The DRI accused the parties involved of importing goods with false declarations regarding their thickness, thus evading the appropriate import duty. The goods were declared to have a thickness of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm, whereas the actual thickness was between 1.4 mm and 1.5 mm. The prosecution argued that this misrepresentation was evident from the seized documents and electronic data, which included deflated bills and communications with exporters in Taiwan/China.

3. Delay in Prosecution:
The court noted a significant delay of 17 years in bringing the complaint to trial, as the alleged offense occurred in 2005, and the case was registered in 2023. The DRI's failure to act promptly was highlighted, and the court expressed concern over the inefficiencies in the prosecution process. Despite this delay, the court acknowledged that there is no limitation period for taking cognizance of economic offenses.

4. Admissibility and Relevance of Evidence:
The court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence and the relevance of the documents sought to be introduced. The DRI argued that the documents were uploaded on a computer and were confidential, requiring court authorization for access. The court emphasized that while the documents' relevance was established, their admissibility, probative value, and classification as primary or secondary evidence would be determined at a later stage.

5. Imposition of Costs on DRI:
The court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the DRI for its procedural lapses and lack of diligence in presenting the evidence. The cost was to be deducted from the responsible officer's salary, emphasizing accountability within the department. The court criticized the DRI for failing to locate and present the already seized documents and for the audacity of filing a second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. despite having the documents in their possession.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., subject to the payment of costs, and directed the DRI to ensure compliance by furnishing the relevant documents with the necessary certifications. The court's decision underscores the importance of procedural diligence and accountability in prosecution, especially in cases involving economic offenses.