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>Anticipatory Bail Granted to LLP Partner in Customs Duty Evasion Case Under Section 438 CrPC</h1> <h3>Suresh Vasudev Agarwal Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai.</h3> The DSC granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused, a partner in the concerned LLP, in a case involving alleged under-valuation of imported ... Grant of pre-arrest bail - under-valuation in imports of Inshell Walnuts - under-valuation in imports of Inshell Walnuts - HELD THAT:- The summons issued to the applicant on 26.06.2025 is for tender of oral evidence. The applicant accused is reported to be the partner of M/s Essar Impex LLP. The document Exhibit – A i.e. arrest memo of Akash Ravish Agrawal being proprietor of M/s. Vasudev Khanchermal Poonawala and partner of M/s Essar Impex LLP. This arrest memo and the inquiry since then prima facie demonstrate the apprehensions put forth by the applicant /accused to be genuine. The applicant /accused is reported to be of 62 years and he has filed various documents pertaining to his illness and treatment thereof. Certainly, these documents are of April and June 2025. In present case the respondent is coming with the case that the consignment were knowingly under valued at a very low rate before customs whereas the goods were having higher cost. Thus, evading sufficient custom duty. The nature and seriousness of the offence alleged, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. Evaluating the entire available material carefully, the presence of applicant with the respondent is not warranted. Appreciating the relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail with the present set of circumstances, prima-facie case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail - the anticipatory bail application is allowed. ISSUES: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a partner apprehending arrest under the Customs Act, 1962, in a case of alleged evasion of customs duty by under-valuation of imports.Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation.Whether non-compliance with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act impacts entitlement to anticipatory bail.Whether the applicant's status as a sleeping partner with no active role affects the grant of anticipatory bail.What conditions should be imposed while granting anticipatory bail under such circumstances. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant on the ground that the 'presence of applicant with the respondent is not warranted,' considering his age, health, and status as a sleeping partner, despite the seriousness of the offence under the Customs Act, 1962.The court held that 'custodial interrogation is not fruitful when the applicant/accused are cushioned with order of pre-arrest bail,' but in this case, the applicant's statement on videoconferencing was not accepted.Non-compliance with summons under Section 108 does not automatically disqualify the applicant from seeking anticipatory bail, as 'the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are distinct and different from the statements recorded by police,' and the applicant was not yet formally an accused.The applicant's claim of being a 'namesake sleeping partner' with no knowledge of business activities was considered relevant in balancing the interests of justice.The anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions including personal bond, regular attendance at the investigating agency, prohibition on inducement or threat to witnesses, restriction on leaving India without permission, and updating contact details. RATIONALE: The court applied the legal framework under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 108 (power to summon persons to give evidence) and relevant penal provisions (Sections 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b)) concerning evasion of customs duty.The court relied on precedents emphasizing that 'normally arrests ought not to be made for offences punishable of less than 7 years,' citing Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI.The court balanced the need to ensure 'no prejudice... to the free, fair and full investigation' against the prevention of 'harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention' of the accused.Consideration was given to the applicant's health, age, and social standing, as well as the fact that seized goods and documents were already in possession of authorities, reducing the necessity for custodial interrogation.The court distinguished statements under Section 108 from police interrogation, noting that the applicant had not yet been formally made an accused, rendering the anticipatory bail application not premature.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
