The Bombay High Court chaired by Justice R.N. Laddha granted bail with conditions and issued a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the applicant who smuggled iPhones by giving misdeclaration in the imported consignments to evade the Customs Duty.
The applicant, in judicial custody, applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
According to the respondent, the applicant smuggled in many consignments of iPhones with false declarations, which resulted in the evasion of customs duties. A network involved in the smuggling of iPhones was the subject of a thorough investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
Furthermore, it is reported that the applicant routinely violated his Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) status, undermined the government’s trust in him, and smuggled several mobile phones into India.
Sujay Kantawala, a counsel for the applicant, testified on behalf of the applicant and claimed that the arresting officer lacked both legal authority and jurisdiction and that his arrest violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It was alleged that on December 2, 2022, at around 6.45 a.m., a group of four DRI officers approached the applicant’s home without authorization from the Settlement Commission in order to make the arrest.
Further added that the summons dated 2 December 2022 was issued at the DRI Mumbai Zonal office only at 08:09:43 after verifying the Document Identification Number (DIN) listed on the document.
Sanjay Kantawala contended that the Applicant was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his actual arrest.
The applicant had willingly come after being asked to appear before DRI, according to Mr. Advait Sethna, Counsel for the first Respondent, and his voluntary testimony was recorded.
The counsel asserts everything opposite to the statements and facts contended by the applicant.
According to the submission, the show cause notice was sent in relation to two bills of entry that the applicant filed on November 26, 2021, at the Air Cargo Complex in Mumbai. The applicant’s prior imports are not covered by the show cause notice.
In accordance with the submission, the current investigation pertains to about 130 bills of entry that the importer filed between 2 January 2021 and 25 November 2021. It was claimed that no application in this regard is currently pending before the Settlement Commission and that no show-cause notice for the specified period was ever issued.
The court observed that the first Respondent contends that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission is restricted to two-sized consignments and for the past 130 consignments.
Furthermore, it should be observed that the Arrest Memo does not appear to contain any information about the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the Applicant. There is no file number on it. According to the Arrest Memo, there are no specifics of the offence other than a list of the applicable penal sections.
The court granted bail by furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 only with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
In the condition, the bench added that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend the office of the first respondent every Friday from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. initially for a period of 2 months and thereafter as and when required.
Before the CESTAT allows Provisional Release to Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha, the same applicant by deposit of 5 Crore, was also covered by taxscan. The Bench consisting of C J Mathew, Technical Member, and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member held that “the impugned order declining provisional release is modified to allow provisional release upon execution of bond for the value of impugned goods and furnishing revenue deposit of ₹ 5,00,00,000 not later than seven days of service of this order.” Read the order here.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
