9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l would have failed. 2. The circumstances here are far from normal. 3. We have before us an affidavit filed in the appeal by Yudhvir Singh Shahrawat, Assistant Collector of Customs. It states that while investigating other cases of refund of additional duty of customs on alcohol and carrying out a search of the residence of one Kumar Prabhulal Shah and his employees, material relevant to the present writ petition was discovered. The aforesaid bill of entry had been filed by M/s. B. Sorabjee, a partnership firm which had its office at Parvex Lodge, Khar, 16th Road, Bombay. On 16th November, 1987 a partner of M/s. B. Sorabjee Co., by name Malcolm M. Mowdawala, had made a statement before the customs authorities. He stated that the aforesaid bill of entry had been filed by his firm but denied that his firm had filed a writ petition for refund of the additional duty of customs paid in respect thereof. He stated that no refund of such additional customs duty had been received by him. On 7th and 10th October, 1988 the said Kumar Shah had made statements before the Customs authorites. He stated that he had filed the present writ petition in the name of M/s. B. Sorabjee and had shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sked the said Kumar Shah to bring the importer to him. The address of M/s. B. Sorabjee was shown in the bill of entry as Perverse Lodge, Khar, 16th Road, Bombay, whereas it was shown in the writ petition as Raut Chambers, Samuel Street, Wadgadi, Bombay. Again, the bill of entry showed M/s. B. Sorabjee to be a partnership firm while the writ petition showed it to be the sole proprietary concern of Harshad Shah. Mr. Kantawala did not verify these details. The import of the goods covered by the aforesaid bill of entry had been arranged by the said Kumar Shah against the additional licence of M/s. B. Sorabjee. The said Kumar Shah had also arranged for the disposal of the imported goods. The goods had been sold in the market by the said Kumar Shah, but he had informed M/s. B. Sorabjee that the goods had been sold to actual users, namely, M/s. Benzo Chemicals, M.I.D.C., Tarapur, on a high sea sale basis. A photocopy of the original writ petition had been obtained by the said Kumar Shah. This photocopy had been obtained by him from this court's staff. Shown the original writ petition that had been recovered from his premises, the said Kumar Shah stated that while Exhibit E in the photocop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount that was so received by the said Kumar Shah was paid to Mr. Kantawala in a lumpsum. After substitution of the exhibits the original writ petition was to be returned to the court's record through Mr. Kantawala. 6. The original writ petition recovered from the premises of the said Kumar Shah was tendered by Counsel on behalf of the customs authorities. We have impounded it and ordered it to be kept in the safe custody of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. 7. The said Harshad Shah was present before us with his Advocate when the appeal was heard. What he stated substantially conformed with the statement of the said Kumar Shah, namely, that he had nothing to do with the firm of M/s. B. Sorabjee and the filing of this writ petition. We asked him to give us samples of his signature and, upon comparing them to the signature upon the original writ petition, we were satisfied that the signature upon the original writ petition was not that of the said Harshad Shah. 8. We must mention that in an order regarding other writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 2377 of 1987 to 2392 of 1987) Variava, J. noted the involvement of the said Kumar Shah in obtaining refunds fraudulently from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in Exhibit E. To receive the cheque for the same, the said Kumar Shah had a rubber stamp bearing the name of M/s. B. Sorabjee prepared. He affixed the stamp upon the Customs receipt and signed it, presumably forging the signature of the said Harshad Shah. The said Kumar Shah then substituted Exhibit E in the copy of the writ petition submitted to the Customs authorities. As substituted, Exhibit E stated that Rs. 14,83,730.22 was due against 106 bills of entry. The complicity of members of the staff of the Customs authorities in the substitution is evident. Whether or not the said Kumar Shah received the said amount of Rs. 14,83,730.22 is not clear upon the record before us. Having effected the substitution in the copy of the writ petition submitted to the Customs authorities, the said Kumar Shah started to cover his tracks. He obtained the original writ petition from the court's record. It is the said Kumar Shah's statement that Mr. Kantawala obtained it for him. Whether or not this is correct, the complicity of the staff of this court is evident. The intention was to effect a substitution of Exhibit E in the original writ petition so that it was in accord with the substi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
