TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct Services at 602, 6th floor, A Wing, Aditya Avenue, V. P. Road, Prarthana Samaj, Khetwadi, Girgaon, Mumbai. 3. In furtherance of the search, 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. 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 applicant's Nephew Mr. Prince for which no Panchanama was given. 4. The investigation was 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. 5. It is alleged by prosecution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He was directed to submit Form I documents regarding imports from Thailand and his bank statements of 25.07.2026, which was submitted by him by E-mail. He attended the office of respondent on 29.01.2026,10.02.2026,04.08.2026 and tendered all the oral evidence which is also not disputed by respondent. His mobile phone was seized on 29.01.2026 and lying in the possession of respondent officer but the copy of seizure panchanama is not provided. 10. On 19.01.2026 again summons was issued to which this applicant replied vide E-mail dt. 20.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 stating that he is having travel plans and filed Air Tickets for proof. After his return from abroad he suo-moto attended the office of respondent on 29.01.2026 and submitted all the documents vide pen drive of his son on 22.04.2026,28.04.2026 and provided bank statement Form No. Al of his E-mail dt. 27.06.2026. 11. Applicant further submit that in view of summons dt. 31.07.2026 he attended respondent office at 04.08.2026 at about 03:15 pm. alongwith his son Aditya. The respondent recorded their separate statements at Wee hours of 04.08.2026 till 05.08.2026 and kept them overnight in their office by coercion and forcefull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority, description of goods, name of supplier as found in certificates which have been verified as fake. When confronted with documentary /physical evidence that the imported pipes bear Chines manufacturer markings XTD and contract contains Chines Arbitration Clause. The accused failed to furnish satisfactory explanation. Hence respondent prayed to reject the bail application. 16. Heard Ld. counsel Dr. Shri. Sujay Kantawala for applicant/accused and Ld. Special PP Shri. Shyamrushi R. Pathak for DRI at length. Perused all the record of the case. Perused remand papers and documents files by both the parties. 17. This Court guided by following case laws filed by Ld. counsel for applicant and prosecution :- i) Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V/s CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP no. 3404 of 2013), Honorable Supreme Court of India. ii) Satender Kumar Antil V/s Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2026) LiveLaw (SC) 114, Honorable Supreme Court of India. iii) Pradeep N. Sharma V/s State of Gujarat and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457. iv) Vineet Jain V/s Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513. v) Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tached letter of Thaida Company dt.08.08.2026 by all three concerns including the accused No. 2's concern, foreign supplier, manufacturer clarified that there was an inadvertent error committed by them by mentioning "Wholly Obtained" and revised Form AI certificates reflecting the applicable origin criteria including "RVC + CTSH" were supplied. 22. It is further argued that, this has not rendered the goods to be evading any duty and there is no violation committed by concerns. 35% RVC would attract the ASEAN and AIFTA benefit, which in the present case, the goods have more than 58% of the RVC value. The subsequently issued new country of origin certificates are verifiable on the DFT which is the Thai government website. Ld. counsel requested to put a query to the respondent authority to verify the same and clarify correct position after opening the website. 23. It is further argued by Ld. counsel for applicant that, he has personally visited Thailand and supervised, thoroughly observed the manufacturing facility. After being satisfied that quality of product are manufactured in the Thaida manufacturing land, various photographs were taken of the facility which he has atta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 24 of 2025, decided on 21.07.2026, The Honourable Bombay High Court considered the evidentiary value of Certificates of Origin relating to imports from Thailand and the effect of verification by the competent Thai authority. The decision reinforces that, where the competent issuing authority authenticates the certificates, Customs cannot disregard such authenticated certificates on extraneous grounds. Verification by the issuing authority assumes central importance in determining origin. The authenticity of a Certificate of Origin is to be determined through the prescribed verification mechanism and with reference to the competent issuing authority. The Department has complied with this requirement in the present case. Unlike cases where certificates remained unverified or were supported by positive authentication, the competent Thai authority has specifically stated that the three Forms AI in question were not issued by it. The adverse finding in the present case is based upon certificate-specific verification and not upon mere suspicion, departmental instructions or circumstantial evidence. 28. Ld. Spl. PP further argued that, the subsequent letter dt. 08.08.2026 filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2026 which is in the form of clarification. They have submitted details of the original and subsequently issued Form AI it shows that the name of applicant's company Seminox Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Ld. defence counsel produced the photographs of the applicant showing that he personally visited to the company's office situated in Thailand, in support of his contentions that he visited for verification. 31. Ld. prosecution filed letter of Asst. Commissioner FTA Cell issued to the DRI, Zonal Unit dt. 05.08.2026 about the verification of three certificates of origin details tobe issued in Thailand for the export of the products. In which issuing authorized in Thailand report that, "having conducted an administrative cross-control, Import Administration and Origin Certificate Division on behalf of Foreign Trade is pleased to inform you that The Department of Foreign Trade or the provincial issuing authority did not issue all the 3 Forms AI as mentioned above". 32. Here, all these documents needs verification from cross borders for investigation agency. Which document is genuine and which requires the further investigation is mostly dependent upon the documentary evidence....