2017 (1) TMI 788 - HC - Customs

Court denies immediate relief in customs case, stresses complaint requirements. Applicant's hardships noted, urges expedited proceedings.

The court disposed of the application without granting immediate relief to quash the proceedings, release the deposited amount, return the passport, or ... Application for discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for - quashing of proceedings of CRIME No.F.No.DRI/AZU/INV-16/2009/Part- 1 - release of amount deposited on bail - stay of other proccedings - Fraudulent import of the high end Cars/SUVs - Held that: - in the absence of any complaint lodged before the competent court under Section 135 of the Customs Act, no relief as such can be granted - I take notice of the fact that almost nine years have passed and the applicant is facing lot of hardships because he has to appear before the officials of the DRI twice in a month. His passport has also been taken away, and at the time of furnishing of the bail, he had to deposit ₹ 10 lac in cash - I expect the authorities concerned to look into the matter at the earliest and act in accordance with the guidelines issued by Circular No.27/2015-Customs, F.No.394/68/2013-Cus (AS) of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs (Anti-Smuggling Unit), New Delhi, dated 23rd October 2015 - application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of proceedings related to CRIME No.F.No.DRI/AZU/INV-16/2009/Part-1.2. Release of the amount deposited at the time of bail and the passport of the petitioner.3. Stay on proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad.4. Delay in lodging a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act.5. Hardships faced by the applicant due to ongoing proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Proceedings:The applicant sought to quash the proceedings related to CRIME No.F.No.DRI/AZU/INV-16/2009/Part-1. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had received information about the applicant's involvement in fraudulent import activities, specifically in the misdeclaration and undervaluation of high-end cars/SUVs. The applicant admitted his role in these activities under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the applicant had been involved in assisting importers to evade customs duties, leading to significant financial implications.2. Release of Amount and Passport:The applicant requested the release of Rs. 10 lakh deposited at the time of bail and the return of his passport. The court highlighted that the applicant was released on bail with conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, regular appearances before DRI officials, and surrendering his passport. Despite the applicant's grievances, the court did not grant immediate relief due to the ongoing nature of the investigation and the lack of a formal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act.3. Stay on Proceedings:The applicant also sought a stay on the proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad. The court did not grant this relief, emphasizing the importance of continuing the legal process to address the allegations against the applicant.4. Delay in Lodging Complaint:A significant issue raised was the delay in lodging a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, with almost nine years having passed without a formal complaint. The court acknowledged this delay and the hardships faced by the applicant, including the requirement to appear before DRI officials twice a month and the retention of his passport. The court urged the authorities to expedite the matter in accordance with the guidelines issued by Circular No.27/2015-Customs.5. Hardships Faced by the Applicant:The court recognized the applicant's hardships due to the prolonged investigation and the conditions imposed during bail. The court expected the authorities to act swiftly and in accordance with the guidelines to address the situation. The guidelines for launching prosecution under the Customs Act were detailed, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of evidence, the role of the accused, and the nature of the offense before proceeding with prosecution.Conclusion:The application was disposed of with the expectation that the authorities would expedite the matter and act in accordance with the guidelines provided. The court did not grant immediate relief for quashing the proceedings, releasing the deposited amount, returning the passport, or staying the ongoing proceedings. The emphasis was placed on the need for a formal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act and adherence to the prosecution guidelines.