2022 (7) TMI 1351 - HC - Customs

Anticipatory Bail Granted in Customs Act Case with Stringent Conditions

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 135 of the Customs Act related to the ... Seeking grant of Sections 135 of the Customs Act - illegal removal of imported goods clandestinely - Section 49 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The second accused arrested and remanded to judicial custody, who is the clearing agent of the goods. Considering the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as fine and penalty as imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs by an order dated 16.02.2022 to the credit of F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-32/2022 within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed with further conditions imposed. Issues:1. Anticipatory bail application under Sections 135 of the Customs Act2. Allegations of clandestine removal of imported goods3. Dispute regarding classification and value of imported goods4. Opposition to grant anticipatory bail by the prosecution5. Conditions imposed for granting anticipatory bailAnalysis:1. The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest under Sections 135 of the Customs Act for alleged offences related to the clandestine removal of imported goods. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner, along with other accused, planned to substitute imported goods with sawdust and divert them to the domestic market without paying customs duty. The respondent police caught the activity red-handed, leading to the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner imported unflavoured supari but faced a dispute regarding the classification and value of the goods. The Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an order confiscating the goods and imposing fines and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act. The petitioner challenged this order through statutory appeal, which was rejected. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the penalty and fine for re-exporting the goods as per the Customs Authority's order.3. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed granting anticipatory bail, stating that the petitioner attempted to remove goods clandestinely without paying the imposed fines and penalties. The prosecution argued that the petitioner violated Customs Act provisions by planning to divert the goods to the domestic market. Despite the opposition, the Court considered the petitioner's submission and decided to grant anticipatory bail with certain conditions.4. The Court ordered the petitioner to deposit a specified sum as fine and penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs within a given period. The petitioner was directed to execute a bond with sureties, deposit the required amount, report to the police daily, not tamper with evidence or abscond, and comply with other conditions. Breach of these conditions would lead to appropriate legal actions as per the law, including the possibility of a fresh FIR under Section 229A IPC if the accused absconds.