TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awn at the residential premises of Prince Sanghvi at 602, 6th floor, A Wing, Aditya Avenue, V. P. Road, Prarthana Samaj, Khetwadi, Girgaon, Mumbai. In furtherance the search and panchanama and search proceedings were continued to the residential premises of applicant being 1302, 'B' Wing, Phoenix Building, Girgaon, Mumbai - 400 004 and the Applicant's office premises at 1219, 12th Floor, Prasad Chambers, Girgaon, Mumbai - 400 004 on 07.01.2026 and nothing incriminating was found. 3. It is submitted that the investigating officers took backup of the emails during the search. The electronic device such as I-Phone 14 Pro being came to be seized from cousin brother of the Applicant for which no Panchanama was given. The investigation carried out by the respondent that one foreign manufacturer and supplier M/s Thaida Stainless Steels Tube Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Thailand was allegedly involved in routing Chinese Origin Steel Products i.e., Seamless Steel Tubes/Pipes via Thailand to India to circumvent the applicable Anti- Dumping Duty (ADD) The applicant has been regularly importing Seamless Steel Tubes/Pipes at Nhava Sheva Port from various Countries and different foreign suppliers.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2026 to appear on 28.07.2026, wherein the applicant was directed to produce his bank statements and Form -I documents regarding imports made from Thailand. In compliance thereof vide E-mail dt. 27.07.2026 since the applicant was unable to attend the respondent's office due to his religious commitments. The applicant was again summoned on 31.07.2026 to appear and tender oral evidence on 04.08.2026 wherein the applicant's statement was recorded. 6. The applicant was remanded to DRI Custody by Court on 05.08.2026. The respondent has surreptitiously and mechanically without any proof thereof concluded that the subject duty assessed and paid goods were of Chinese Origin and not Thai Origin. The entire process of verification and conducting an inquiry pertaining to the Country-of-Origin Certificate is prescribed under Rule 6 of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 (CAROTAR Rules), after which a show cause notice is issued and adjudication proceedings commence. But no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the applicant. 7. All the imported goods have a diameter of more than 6 NPS (168.3 mm) and that such goods even in the event were to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inistration and Origin Certification Division, Department of Foreign Trade, Thailand categorically states that the department of Foreign Trade/provincial issuing authority did not issue the said three Forms AI. The applicant himself in his voluntary statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitted that the three proof of origin certificates were used for filing and clearance of the bills of entry and when confronted with the official verification from Thailand, expressly accepted that the said certificates were not issued by the Thai authorities and were fake. The applicant is the proprietor of M/s Industahl International and the authorised signatory who admittedly signed the import documents. His statement further reveals that he signed the pre-prepared import documents and that his father handled the import-related work, payments and coordination with the foreign supplier. Thus, the applicant cannot claim that he is a completely unconnected or innocent person having no role in the transactions. 11. The contention that possession of electronic data by the department completely eliminates the possibility of tampering is untenable. The investigation is requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hai authority has specifically stated that the three Forms AI in question were not issued by it. Therefore, the adverse finding in the present case is based upon certificate-specific verification and not upon mere suspicion, departmental instructions or circumstantial evidence. 14. The subsequent letter dt. 08.08.2026 allegedly issued by the foreign supplier and the alleged revised Forms AI is a matter requiring independent verification from the Thai authorities it cannot merely because it has been produced subsequent to arrest, retrospectively erase the official verification already received from the issuing authority. The applicant's plea that the foreign suppliers committed an inadvertent error and that the importers had no knowledge of the same is therefore a matter of defence which requires investigation and cannot be accepted at this stage. 15. Perused application and say. Heard Ld. counsel Dr. Shri. Sujay Kantawala for applicant/accused No. 2 and Ld. Special PP Shri. S. R. Pathak for DRI at length. Perused all the record of the case. Perused remand papers and documents files by both the parties. 16. I am guided by following case laws filed by Ld. counsel for applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountry of origin as alleged by respondent. Earlier also three days DRI custody was granted. They have not recorded any statement in judicial custody. 19. Ld. defence counsel further relied upon the document dt. 08.08.2026 in which invoice date is mentioned as 17.10.2025. Said document is on the letter head of Thaida Stainless Steel. They have given details of the original and subsequently issued Form AI. There is again the previous letter of invoice dated 18.10.2025 with new reference number. He has relied upon the following contentions : - "The original Form AI had been issued under the origin criterion "Wo- Wholly Obtained", indicating that the goods were considered as wholly obtained/produced in Thailand. Subsequently, it was identified that the WO criterion had been stated incorrectly due to an error at our end as the exporter/supplier" . He further argued that they have regret in the error. 20. It is argued by Ld. Special PP that, the applicant is the proprietor of M/s Industahl International and the authorised signatory who admittedly signed the import documents. His statement further reveals that he signed the pre-prepared import documents and that his father ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24. Now the question remains about the tampering of evidence. His father is in jail. Respondent has sought DRI custody of his father. Therefore his court find no substance that this applicant will tamper any evidence alone only. Because as per defence panchnama carried out at the residence of Prince Sanghvi, documents seized from his residence. Considering all above aspects no further custodian confinement is warranted and some terms and conditions can fulfill the purpose of investigation. Hence, proceed to pass following order : - ORDER i. The Bail Application of applicant/accused No. 2 Aditya Chandra Prakash Sanghvi is allowed. ii. Applicant/accused be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one or two surety/sureties in the like amount. iii. Cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) is allowed, upto 2 months, if he is not having surety/sureties at present. iv. He shall not influence and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. He shall co-operate for further investigation of the case. v. He is directed to remain present as and when called by respondent in connection with investigation of this offe....