2019 (6) TMI 1160 - HC - Customs

Grant of regular bail - misdeclaration of importing High Speed Diesel (HSD) in the name of Base Oil SN 50 - prohibited goods or not - smuggled goods or not - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the offence under the Customs Act is compoundable and the maximum sentence is of 7 years, the Court is inclined to consider the case for bail on certain conditions - It is also found that during the course of investigation, remand of the applicant was not sought and entire investigation is now based on documents. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to further detain the applicant in custody. The applicant is aged 50 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail for the alleged offences under the Customs Act, on executing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application for regular bail in connection with arrest for misdeclaration of importing High Speed Diesel (HSD) as "Base Oil SN 50" under the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Misdeclaration of Imported Goods
The case involved an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with the arrest for misdeclaration of importing High Speed Diesel (HSD) as "Base Oil SN 50." The Department alleged that HSD falls under prohibited goods defined by the Customs Act, leading to the treatment of the imported base oil as smuggled goods. The applicant argued that the product imported did not meet the characteristics of HSD, as indicated by the flash point test results from the Indian Oil Corporation, which differed significantly from the prescribed norm for HSD. The applicant highlighted that the Department continued to treat the product as HSD despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

Issue 2: Legal Arguments
The applicant's legal counsel presented various arguments to support the bail application. They emphasized that the imported base oil was not different from that imported by another party, Rajkamal Industrial Pvt. Ltd., and that the categorization of the product as HSD was erroneous. The counsel referred to relevant definitions under the Customs Act to establish that the imported product did not fall under the definition of HSD. Additionally, they pointed out that the offence under the Customs Act was compoundable with a maximum punishment of 7 years, warranting consideration for bail.

Issue 3: Department's Objection
The Department strongly objected to granting regular bail, citing the potential discovery of a significant scam involving the misclassification and sale of prohibited goods in the open market. They argued that the analysis reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) indicated that the imported base oil was indeed HSD, refuting the applicant's claims. The Department contended that the misclassification was a deliberate attempt to mislead and suppress the actual nature of the imported goods.

Issue 4: Court's Decision and Conditions
After considering the case papers, test reports, statements of the applicant and buyers, and the nature of the allegations, the Court decided to grant bail. The Court noted that the offence under the Customs Act was compoundable with a maximum sentence of 7 years, and the investigation was primarily document-based without seeking the applicant's remand. The Court imposed several conditions for bail, including executing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, reporting to the authorities regularly, and not leaving the state without permission. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court should not be influenced by its preliminary observations during the bail hearing.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the applicant on regular bail with specified conditions, and directed the Trial Court to monitor compliance with the bail conditions.