Exemption scheme conditions and export obligation breach justified treating imported gold as liable to confiscation and denying anticipatory bail.

Imported gold under an exemption scheme had to be processed and re-exported within the stipulated 120-day period from actual receipt of the consignment in India. Because the last import was on 25.01.2023, the goods were not produced for processing or export, and the investigation indicated that the gold had disappeared, the exemption conditions were treated as unfulfilled and the goods as liable to confiscation. On that basis, the alleged customs duty evasion was considered substantial and custodial interrogation necessary, leading to refusal of anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged customs duty evasion, non-fulfilment of export obligation, and liability of imported goods to confiscation.

Analysis: The application turned on whether the imported gold was required to be processed and re-exported within the stipulated period and whether the extended export validity displaced the original obligation tied to the date of receipt of the consignment in India. The material before the Court showed that the import scheme imposed a maximum period of 120 days for export of processed goods from the date of actual receipt of the consignment, that the last import was on 25.01.2023, and that the gold was not produced for processing or export. The statements recorded during investigation and the surrounding circumstances indicated that the imported gold had disappeared and that the conditions of the exemption notification were not observed. On that basis, the imported goods were treated as liable to confiscation, the duty evasion was treated as substantial, and custodial interrogation was found necessary.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods under an exemption scheme are not used in accordance with the stated conditions and the export obligation is not fulfilled within the prescribed time, the resulting duty evasion and liability to confiscation can justify refusal of anticipatory bail, including where custodial interrogation is found necessary.

---