TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....06.2009, A1 to A3 entered into criminal conspiracy with the petitioner to clear the goods mentioned in the table without reference to Assistant Drugs Controller. The case was registered under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471, 482 IPC, 13(1) (a) (b) r/w. 9(B) (e), 10(A), (bb) (c ) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and substantiate offences thereof in RC.No.13/E/2009 CBI/EOW/Chennai dated 02.09.2009. 3. After the investigation, the respondent laid the charge sheet before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 4. The case of the respondent as per the charge sheet is that during the year 2009, A1 Company represented by A2, A3 and this petitioner, CHA (Customs House Agent) entered into criminal conspiracy to import spurious and sub-standard drugs into India by using forged documents and without proper license and thereby to cheat the Customs Department in public in general. A1 Company imported 300 kgs of Cefotaxime Sodium USP vide Invoice No. HX9ZF12F097 dated 09.04.2009 through Chennai Sea Port from M/s.Zhejian Chemical Import and Export Corporation, China. While importing, A1 Company submitted Bill of Entry No.22865....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacutred by the registered manufacturer and thereby cheated the customs officials in importing the prohibited articles and also the public in general and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471, 482 IPC, 13(1) (a) (b) r/w. 9(B) (e), 10(A), (bb) (c ) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's role is limited and that he has acted only as a customs house agent on behalf of A2 and A3 and the petitioner had no personal knowledge about the manufacturer in China. The petitioner accused is not a technical person to know the formula for manufacturing the drugs etc., and he is a clearing agent, who handles several other goods, including drugs consignments. There is no proof regarding conspiracy of petitioner with the importers. There is no mis-declaration in the documents by petitioner. There is no evidence for forging of documents by the petitioner. The customs officials have to scrutinise the documents and if there is negligence on the part of the Customs Officials, they have to take the responsibility for such negligence. Though negligence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to escape the mandatory clearance by the Assistant Drugs Controller furnished a certificate falsely declaring contents as Organic Chemical . This is inspite of the suffice USP to the imported substance in the Bill of Entry which clearly indicates it as a drug. 13. The customs officials have been dealt with departmentally for their lapse and it vindicates the stand that the CHA who has cleared goods for A-1 to A-3 on previous occasions has knowledge of the offence. Customs officials could not be prosecuted as A4 had written in the date entry form that the consignment is Organic Chemical and they have claimed defence of oversight for the consignment being a drug in the Bill of Entry. The finding of the trial court is perverse and fails to consider the fact that there is a prima facie case and also incriminating materials are available against the petitioner to proceed further and therefore, the IV Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the revision in Crl.RC.No.46/2012 has correctly set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order dated 17.02.2012 in Crl.MP.No.276/2011. The reason assigned by the learned IV Add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention regarding non- impleading of Custom Officials as an accused in this case are not sustainable under law, at the best, if negligence as attributed against the customs officials established, they can be dealt with departmentally and not otherwise. There is no materials to implicate them as accused. 18. The main allegation against this petitioner is that A1 Company had imported 300 kgs of Cefataxime Sodium USP vide invoice No.HX9ZF12F097 dated 09.04.2009 through Chennai Seaports. While importing them, he had submitted the Bill of Entry No.228654 dated 02.06.2009 through this petitioner. Whereas the importer had submitted Manufacturer Certificate, Batch Release Certificate and Certificate of Analysis along with invoice and packing list claiming that the product was manufactured by the registered manufacturer M/s.Zhejiang Yongning Pharmaceuticals Factory, China. 19. During verification, the manufacturer disowned the project imported by A1 Company and the drug was found to be spurious and after the said consignment was detained by the authority, the A1 Company had imported Cefotaxime Sodium Sterile vide Bill of Entry No.244751 dated 23.06.2009. Further, the Company had im....