2022 (11) TMI 1100 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of Bail - goods did not reach Customs Bonded (Public) Warehouse and the same were clandestinely removed from the Bonded Warehouse to Domestic Tariff Area - fraudulent evasion - only allegation against the applicant is that after being taken out of the warehouse at Mumbai for being transported to a particular warehouse, the goods were transported to another warehouse - Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - What prima facie appears at this stage is that certain goods were imported by M/s Saaz Tradings and the goods were stored at a warehouse at Dadri; that the bond for a sum equal to three times to stamp duty, as provided in Section 59 (1) (b) of the Custom Act was submitted by the importer company; that the goods were taken out for being transported to another warehouse at Raigarh after requisite documentation; that the allegation is that instead of transporting the goods to Raigarh, the goods were transported to Delhi from where the same have been recovered; that the bond executed by the importer still continues to remain in force as provided under Section 59 (4) of the Customs Act; and the customs duty payable by the company stands secured by the bond executed by the importer company and till date, a notice demanding Customs duty has not been issued to the importer. Let the applicant Mohammad Jahas be released on bail, under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1) (b) r/w Section 135 (1) (i) and 135 (1) (ii) of Customs Act, 1962 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application in Case Crime No.49 of 2022 under Customs Act, 1962 Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b).

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The applicant, a manager of a trading firm, was arrested in connection with the alleged evasion of customs duty related to the import of betel nut splits. The goods were transferred to a Customs Bonded Warehouse but were later found in a Domestic Tariff Area, leading to an investigation and recovery of the consignment.

2. Legal Provisions: The charges against the applicant fall under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, which deal with fraudulent evasion of duty or dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The provisions of Section 111 of the Act regarding confiscation of improperly imported goods are also relevant.

3. Defendant's Argument: The applicant, represented by senior counsel, argued that he was merely an employee of the importer firm and not directly involved in the alleged evasion. The firm had followed proper procedures, including executing a bond for customs duty payment, and the duty liability remained secured.

4. Court's Evaluation: The court noted that the goods were imported and stored following procedures, with the duty payment secured by the importer's bond. The applicant's role was limited to being an employee, and no notice demanding customs duty had been issued to the importer, indicating the duty payment issue had not arisen.

5. Additional Evidence: A supplementary affidavit revealed that the consignment diversion was allegedly instructed by another company, not the importer, raising questions about the applicant's direct involvement in the evasion.

6. Decision: Considering the facts and circumstances, the court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing his lack of criminal history, the continuing bond securing duty payment, and the absence of a demand notice for duty payment. The court imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

7. Conclusion: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail in the mentioned case under specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the legal process, pending further trial proceedings.