Anticipatory bail granted in Customs Act case emphasizing compliance with investigation and bail conditions

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving offenses under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, accused of undervaluing imported goods to evade customs duty, was directed to cooperate with investigations, furnish a bond with sureties, and provide contact details to the Investigating Officer. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses impacting public funds and stressed the importance of the petitioner's compliance with bail conditions to avoid cancellation.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C in a case involving offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in importing white paper through his firm, was accused of grossly undervaluing imported goods to evade customs duty. A search operation revealed discrepancies in the declared value of goods, prompting the Department of Revenue Intelligence to register a case. The petitioner approached the CESTAT for release of seized goods, which required executing a bond and bank guarantee. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after specific allegations of duty evasion surfaced, leading to the dismissal of his initial application by the Additional Session Judge.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the seized goods were released by the Customs Authorities, and the petitioner cooperated with investigations post interim protection. In contrast, the DRI contended that the petitioner, a repeat offender, evaded VAT refund claims and under-declared imported goods. Despite multiple summons, the petitioner allegedly avoided appearances until seeking anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences affecting public funds.

The court considered the allegations of undervaluation and evasion amounting to approximately Rs. 13 crores. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with investigations, while the DRI insisted on his reluctance without protective bail. Referring to relevant judgments, the court noted the gravity of economic offences impacting the country's financial health. Granting bail, the court directed the petitioner to join investigations promptly upon notice, furnish a bond with sureties, and provide all mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the application with specified conditions for granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation in investigations and adherence to bail terms to prevent cancellation.

---