TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jewelry Firm Partner Granted Bail in Gold Seizure Case Below Customs Act Arrest Threshold; Conditions Applied.</h1> <h3>Anil Soni Versus Union of India Thru. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)</h3> Anil Soni Versus Union of India Thru. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - 2023 (385) E.L.T. 685 (All.) Issues: Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 135 of Custom Act, 1962Ownership of Gold:The applicant, a partner of a jewelry firm, seeks anticipatory bail in a case where gold was seized from an employee. The firm claims ownership of the gold and asserts it was being transferred internally from Kolkata to Jaipur for redesigning. The applicant's representative provided documents supporting the ownership claim.Legal Guidelines and Arrest:The applicant argues against arrest citing a circular limiting arrest for customs offenses involving goods over Rs. 2,00,00,000. The value of the gold seized is Rs. 1,75,55,000, below the threshold. The applicant's cooperation in the investigation is emphasized to protect his liberty.Opposing Arguments and Investigation:The DRI opposes bail, stating the gold was recovered from the employee based on intelligence, implicating the applicant. They claim lack of proof of ownership and non-cooperation in the investigation. The DRI seeks to establish the applicant's culpability through a counter affidavit.Court Decision and Conditions:The Court considers the guidelines restricting arrest for offenses below Rs. 2,00,00,000 and grants anticipatory bail to the applicant until the next hearing. Conditions include appearing before the investigating officer, surrendering the passport, and cooperating in the investigation. Non-compliance may lead to the vacation of the interim order. The case is listed for further proceedings on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
