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>Petitioner Granted Bail in Customs Duty Evasion Case</h1> <h3>ANIL JAIN Versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE</h3> ANIL JAIN Versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 215 (Del.) Issues: Alleged customs duty evasion, detention and interrogation of the petitioner, bail applicationAlleged customs duty evasion:The petitioner was accused of knowingly purchasing dry fruits imported without payment of customs duty. The case was set up under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's initial statement indicated purchasing 30 MTs of dry fruits, claiming no knowledge of non-duty paid goods. However, a subsequent statement on 5-4-2006 suggested purchasing 400 MTs, leading to an alleged evasion of Rs. 7 crores in customs duty. The petitioner's counsel argued against Sections 132 and 135 application to the petitioner, while the DRI representative disputed the petitioner's claims, asserting the voluntary nature of the statement and opposing bail on the grounds of pending investigation and the seriousness of the offense.Detention and interrogation of the petitioner:The petitioner was taken into custody on 5-4-2006 and alleged torture and harassment by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of interrogation during the custody period and argued against the necessity of custodial interrogation due to already recorded statements. The petitioner's background in the dry fruits business for over 50 years, being an Income-tax Assessee, and having established roots in society were presented as factors negating the possibility of fleeing from justice if granted bail.Bail application:The Court considered the petitioner's custodial period, the absence of interrogation, and the petitioner's societal roots in determining the bail application. Emphasizing that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, the Court found no reason to deny bail. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lac with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned ACMM/Duty Magistrate, New Delhi. The bail application was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 