2021 (9) TMI 666 - HC - Customs

Grant of anticipatory bail - removal of consignment from ICD without paying the custom duty - instead of aluminium scrap, cigarettes (100 mm each) of four different brands were imported without paying the custom duty - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the notice to the petitioner was issued on various dates w.e.f. 12.08.2021 and instead of appearing before the Custom Authorities, the petitioner preferred to present his anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed on 24.08.2021. The present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed - Even otherwise, there are serious allegations of causing a huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and therefore, even on merits, this petition is liable to be dismissed - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case involving offenses under the Customs Act (Section 135, 135-A, 132, and other sections) pending before the Department of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving Customs Act offenses. The petitioner, a G-Card holder, was allegedly involved in a case where a consignment was imported without paying custom duty. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that he was falsely implicated as he had reported the incident to the Customs Department. However, the respondent opposed the bail, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case where granting bail at the notice stage was deemed impermissible. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the Custom Authorities despite multiple notices and had previously been denied anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition based on the precedent and the serious financial loss allegations.

2. Legal Precedent and Dismissal:
The respondent, represented by Senior Counsel, relied on legal precedent from a Supreme Court judgment to argue against granting anticipatory bail at the notice stage under the Customs Act. The court referenced the case of Union of India versus Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, where granting bail at the notice stage was considered akin to a blanket bail and not permissible. Additionally, the respondent presented statements implicating the petitioner in a conspiracy that led to a significant financial loss to the State Exchequer. The court considered these factors, along with the petitioner's failure to appear before the authorities, and concluded that the petition was not maintainable and liable for dismissal. The dismissal was also supported by the seriousness of the allegations regarding the financial loss.

3. Failure to Appear and Dismissal:
Despite receiving multiple notices from the Customs Department, the petitioner did not appear before the authorities but opted to seek anticipatory bail. The court highlighted this failure to comply with the notices and the prior denial of bail by the Court of Sessions. Citing the Supreme Court judgment and the gravity of the financial loss allegations, the court deemed the petition unsustainable and proceeded to dismiss it. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's actions, legal precedent, and the significant financial implications of the case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Customs Act offenses due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the authorities, legal precedent against granting bail at the notice stage, and serious allegations of causing a substantial financial loss to the State Exchequer.