2010 (1) TMI 262 - HC - Customs

Anticipatory bail Fear due to Summons issued under section 108 of Custom Act, 1962. - sample taken in the month of April, 2009 does not reveal any adulteration. petitioners are apprehending arrest under Section 104 of the Act held that is only a summons which was issued by the respondent for recording the statement of the 1st petitioner and that itself is not sufficient to hold reasonable apprehension of arrest. - Furthermore it is revealed from the material placed on record that the summons were issued to the petitioners on 26-10-2009 and on other 3 more occasions and since then the petitioners have not put their attendance for re cording their statement. I am of the opinion that in the absence of reasonable apprehension of arrest, an anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Allegations of misdeclaration and fraudulent export.
- Authority of Customs to issue summons under Section 108 of the Act.
- Apprehension of arrest and need for anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
1. Petition for Anticipatory Bail: The petitioners, directors of a company exporting industrial salt, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest under Section 135 of the Customs Act. They claimed innocence and readiness to cooperate with authorities. The Central Government Standing Counsel opposed, alleging misdeclaration and fraudulent export of restricted goods. The court considered the facts and contentions to determine the need for anticipatory bail.

2. Allegations of Misdeclaration: The respondent alleged that the exported potassium chloride was misdeclared as industrial salt, violating export policies. The petitioners denied the allegations, stating compliance with export regulations. The court examined the evidence and arguments regarding the misdeclaration and fraudulent export of goods, crucial for determining the necessity of anticipatory bail.

3. Authority of Customs to Issue Summons: The Customs Authority issued summons under Section 108 of the Act to record statements and investigate the alleged offences. The petitioners claimed the summoning was an abuse of process, while the respondent argued for the necessity of recording statements for the investigation. The court analyzed the legality and procedural aspects of the summons issued by the Customs Authority.

4. Apprehension of Arrest and Anticipatory Bail: The petitioners expressed apprehension of arrest under Section 135 of the Act due to the ongoing investigation. The court reviewed the grounds for apprehension, including non-cooperation with authorities and the need for recording statements. The Central Government Standing Counsel argued against granting anticipatory bail, citing lack of reasonable apprehension of arrest. The court deliberated on the need for anticipatory bail based on the circumstances and evidence presented.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, considering the absence of reasonable apprehension of arrest and non-cooperation of the petitioners in providing information for the investigation. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the allegations, procedural aspects of the case, and the legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.