2024 (12) TMI 757 - HC - Customs

Clandestinely import of goods with an intention of avoiding huge amount of custom duty - allegation in the present case appears to be that although the consignments were declared to be containing Motherboard Casing with Power Supply, it was actually found that there were other electronic equipments also imported, which had not been declared - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that the goods that were seized, were meant for delivery to the aforesaid entity at Delhi i.e. M/s. S. S. Overseas. There does not appear to be any material brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the goods were actually meant for delivery to the applicant or his entity i.e. M/s. ACJ Computronix. The allegation in the present case appears to be that although the consignments were declared to be containing Motherboard Casing with Power Supply, it was actually found that there were other electronic equipments also imported, which had not been declared. It is a matter of record that the proprietor of M/s. S. S. Overseas was arrested and he was granted regular bail by the Competent Court at Delhi, on 23rd July 2024. It was observed in the order passed by the said Court that the entire goods have been already seized and considering the nature of allegations, even if custom duty is to be recovered, further physical custody of the said person was not necessary. This Court is of the opinion that considering the fact that the applicant, or his entity, was not even a consignee of the said goods and the statements brought to the notice of this Court only give an impression that the applicant may have had business relations with M/s. S. S. Overseas, without specific material to link the applicant with the aforesaid goods in the present case, the application can be allowed, so long as the applicant cooperates with the investigation. The goods have been already seized and the liability to pay custom duty would certainly be ascertained and foisted upon the responsible individuals in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant is arrested on the file of Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (Import), he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount - applicant shall remain present before the office of the Special Investigating and Intelligence Branch (Import) (SSIB) on 16th and 17th December 2024 between 10 00 a.m. and 12 00 noon and thereafter, as and when required by respondent No. 1. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation - The application is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Apprehension of arrest in connection with alleged customs duty evasion through clandestine importation.

Analysis:
The applicant approached the court fearing arrest in a case involving the clandestine importation of goods to avoid customs duty. The applicant, associated with a Delhi-based entity, was accused of involvement in the importation scheme. The applicant argued that despite the serious allegations under the Customs Act, there was no direct evidence linking him to the illegal acts. The applicant had cooperated with some summons but cited ill-health for non-attendance. The defense emphasized that the applicant's association with the Delhi entity did not automatically implicate him in the alleged customs duty evasion scheme. The defense contended that physical custody was unnecessary as long as the applicant was willing to assist in further investigations.

The respondent, on the other hand, relied on investigation statements indicating a direct link between the applicant and the alleged illegal activities. The respondent accused the applicant of evading summons and failing to cooperate with the investigation. The goods seized were intended for the Delhi entity, not the applicant's entity. While acknowledging the applicant's business relations with the Delhi entity, the court noted the lack of specific evidence connecting the applicant to the seized goods. The court highlighted that the Delhi entity's proprietor had been granted bail without the need for further custody, as the goods were already seized, and any customs duty liability would be determined and imposed according to the law.

The court, after considering the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the alleged customs duty evasion and the seized goods, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The conditions of bail included a PR Bond and sureties, mandatory appearances before the investigating branch, cooperation with the investigation, and non-interference with prosecution evidence or witnesses. The court warned that any violation of the bail conditions could lead to its cancellation. The court clarified that the observations in the order were specific to the grant of anticipatory bail in this case, and the application was disposed of.