TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of the specific intelligence, restricted items (ammunition -bullets and cases) imported by the importer Hughes Precision Manufacturing Private Limited, (referred to as 'HPMP' for convenience), Verna Goa, and imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5458279 dated 02.11.2025 were examined at Air Cargo Complex, Dabolim Goa. The examination revealed that the declared description in the Bill of Entry did not match with the description mentioned on the items found during the examination. The related import licence for import of restricted goods, did not permit goods actually imported by the importer making the imported items prohibited goods under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The co-accused Jayesh Shetye, who was Manager of HPMP, in his statement dated 04.11.2025 accepted that the HPMP did not have an import licence for the items imported vide that Bill of Entry. After that the premises of the importer were searched and the Investigating Agency came across another Bill of Entry No. 2534607 dated 07.06.2025. It was a fabricated Bill of Entry according to the Investigating Agency. The co-accused -Jayesh Shetye again admitted about the said fact. Accordingly, the scrutiny o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, granting bail to the Respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the Applicant made the following submissions :- (i) The Respondent Company was having a license to import the material for manufacturing assault rifle cartridges used by the Armed Forces, but they imported goods used for manufacturing bullet projectiles, which could be used by civilians. Those bullets could be used in pistols and could be sold in the domestic market. The Respondent's Company did not have an import licence to import goods for manufacturing those bullets. She submitted that there were two instances in March and June this year, where there was a fire in the warehouse and factory of the Respondent's Company. It was not known to the Applicant but during the investigation, it was revealed that there was loss of raw material worth Rs. 5 and 30 crores, which would mean that the evasion of duty was at a much larger scale. The inventory did not match with the material actually found and the material which was claimed to have been destroyed in the fire. There is a strong possibility that large-scale goods were sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that this is a clear indication that the accused Sanjay Soni not being arrested is affecting the investigation and there is absolutely no cooperation from any other witnesses. (vi) She further submitted that for the first time in the affidavit in reply filed before this Court, the Respondent Soni has taken a ground that he was produced before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours from his arrest. He was actually taken in custody at about 1:30 p.m. on 18.11.2025 and he was shown arrested at 8:35 a.m. on 19.11.2025. He was produced before the Magistrate on 03:30 p.m on 18.11.2025. This is the stand taken by the Respondent, Soni in his affidavit in reply. She submitted that the facts are not correct. The Investigating Officer had to seek approval from his superior i.e. the Commissioner under Section 104 of the Customs Act and only then, he could arrest the accused. Before such arrest, he was recording the statement of the accused. (vii) She further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in relying on Section 35 of the BNSS by observing that notice under Section 35 was not issued to the accused and therefore, the arrest was not legal. She submitted that first of all, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion-Customs) CBIC, New Delhi, to contend that unless the amount of drawback/exemption from duty was above Rs.2 crores or more, the arrest was not necessary. He submitted that the goods which were seized were not prohibited goods. Section 2(33) of the Customs Act defines the "prohibited goods". Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to issue notification declaring certain goods as prohibited goods. The seized goods do not fall under any category of the prohibited goods. The offence is cognizable under Section 104(4)(a)(b) of the Customs Act, 1989, which refers to prohibited goods and where evasion of duty is more than Fifty Lakhs and the present case does not fall within these categories. 9. He submitted that in this case, the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992, would be applicable, which does not show that the goods which were imported by the accused, Company and which were seized, were prohibited goods. He relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Atul Automation Private Limited [(2019) 3 SCC 539] He further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty was payable at all. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS 13. I have considered the submissions. The learned Magistrate has accepted in paragraph 20 of the impugned order that the bail application was put up before the Court at about 05:40 p.m., the Investigating Officer was served with a copy after 06:00 p.m. and there was no say of the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor had requested for permission to file a detailed say. However, on the basis of the reasons for granting bail referred to in the Order, the learned Magistrate observed that the bail application was considered without the say of the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it is an accepted position, which is recorded in the order itself that the investigating agency was denied an opportunity to file their say opposing the bail application. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in such a serious offence, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have called for the say of the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate has proceeded mainly on the ground that the investigating agency had not made out a case and had not satisfied the learned Magistrate as to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of the bail application. 14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the notification issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act. The import of goods i.e. Arms and Ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959, was prohibited absolutely. A copy of the said notification is taken on the record and marked 'X' for identification. 15. As far as the argument that the circular issued by the Commissioner lays down that the arrest may not be necessary in case involving evasion of duty below Rs. 2 Crores is concerned, the same circular includes clause (g). It mentions that the said criteria would not apply in cases involving offences relating to items i.e. arms and ammunitions. In such cases, the question of arrest would be considered irrespective of value of goods involved. The said circular is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the accused, Soni in Criminal Application (Main) No. 1168 of 2025(F) Therefore, in any case, the circular does not come in the way of the Investigating Officer in arresting the accused. 16. As far as the ground of producing the accused, Soni beyond 24 hours is concerned, he is already granted bail by the learned Mag....