The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to person accused of illegal faulty import of old laptops & CPUs worth Rs. 4 crores.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale has observed that the goods that were seized, were meant for delivery to the 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 applicant submits that he is proprietor of M/s. ACJ Computronix, which deals with CCTV cameras, packing material etc. SIIB Customs House Nhava Sheva, is investigating the import of electrical material imported by M/s. S.S. Overseas. The goods which are designated to Patparganj New Delhi, were in transit and were intercepted for illegal faulty import. Action of the respondent is premature.
The respondent had conducted search of repairing shop of the applicant, as the applicant dealt with M/s. S. S. Overseas in the past. It is submitted that, in the search only cash of Rs.27,37,000/- was found. The applicant issued summons and he had provided entire record of the transaction.
The applicant has no concern with the M/s. S. S. Overseas. Applicant had issued letters and clarified his innocence. In the search dated 31/05/2024, the stock found was of repair and other material, which has no concern with the applicant. The applicant has submitted his profit and loss account, KYC details. The owner of M/s. S. S. Overseas was arrested and is released on bail. Applicant has apprehension of arrest.
The department contended that the Less Container Load consignment was imported by M/s. S. S. Overseas which arrived on Nhava Sheva Port. On specific intelligence, the consignment was put on hold and goods were examined under panchanama. Importer had declared goods as Motherboard Casing with power Supply and Optical, as per bill of lading. On examination of undeclared goods, 4600 old laptops, 1546 old CUPs were found. The goods were inspected by Customs empaneled chartered engineer who has suggested the value of goods as Rs.4,11,46,352/-.
The sessions court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application held that , though there is no bill of entry and goods were intercepted in the transit, prima facie value of the goods which were mis-declared is in corers. Conduct of the applicant is such that, he has not supplied all the documents nor remain present before customs authority, prior to filing of this application.
Subsequently, the applicant approached the High Court, apprehending arrest in connection with a case instituted by a Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch (Import) on the allegation that certain goods were sought to be clandestinely imported with the intention of avoiding huge amount of custom duty and in that context, the applicant was said to be actively involved with other individuals.
The applicant contended that the consignee in the present case is an entity called M/s. S. S. Overseas, located in Delhi and merely because the applicant and his proprietorship M/s. ACJ Computronix has been associated with the said entity in Delhi, certain allegations have been made against the applicant. The proprietor of M/s. S. S. Overseas has been already granted regular bail by the Competent Court at Delhi, making observations to the effect that the physical custody of the accused was not necessary and that a prima facie case was made out.
The applicant conted that even if the allegations levelled against the applicant and the other accused persons, pertained to Section 111(d), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and when read with Section 135 thereof, maximum punishment of imprisonment of 7 years is provided, so long as there is no material to link the applicant with the alleged acts, physical custody cannot be insisted upon. The applicant had responded to some summons issued earlier by the department, but due to ill-health, he could not attend to all the summons.
The applicant contended that liability to pay custom duty cannot be foisted upon the applicant, in any manner, and that in any case, no purpose would be served in insisting upon physical custody of the applicant, so long as he is ready to cooperate with further investigation into the matter.
The court allowed the anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground that 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 anticipatory bail was granted subject to various conditions.
Firstly, in the event 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.
Secondly, the 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 as and when required by respondent. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation.
Lastly, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other person concerned with the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Manish Jain Versus The Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3284 Of 2024
Date: 12th December 2024
Counsel For Applicant: Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w Aditya Talpade and Pratik Kanade
Counsel For Respondent: S. S. Chandrashekar a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria
