JOGINDER GULATI Vs. IO DRI NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 135(1)(a) of Customs Act. The case of the complainant is that on receiving intelligence about smuggling of contraband goods into India through speed post parcels, officers of DRI went to speed post centre at Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi on 12.10.2002 and identified eight packages. Four parcels out of them belong to accused No.1 Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and were consigned by VIST International Pte. Ltd from Singapore. Description of the goods had not been given on the consignment note affixed on them and the goods found inside the packages were not in terms of the description given in the invoices found inside the packages. A letter was also received from Sh. Pradeep Jain, counsel for accused No.1 Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., enclosing certain invoices therewith and claiming that there was no variance in the description given in those invoices and the actual goods found in the packages. It was, however, found, on a scrutiny, that the invoices enclosed with the letter did not tally with the invoices found inside the packages since there was discrepancy in the quantity and value. The invoice No. 6070forwarded with the letter showed the quantity as 100 and total price as US$3,500, whereas the invoice recovered from the package showed the quantity as 50 and the price as US$1,750. The quantity actually recovered from the package was 100 and not 50.

(2.) During the course of investigation, statement of accused No.2 Sandeep Sehgal was recorded, in which he stated that petitioner Joginder Gulati was also a Director in Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. He further stated that Joginder Gulati used to reside at Singapore and owned two companies including VIST International Pvt. Ltd. and that he along with Joginder Gulati, had decided to import computer parts to India from the company of Gulati in Singapore. He also stated that during the period from August 2002 to December 2002, they had got cleared about 70-80 parcels, out of which only 50% contained computer parts and the rest contained printing material and that he had not paid any duty for the consignments imported during that period. He further stated that he used to send money to Singapore through persons, whose names and details were conveyed to him by Joginder Gulati. He also stated that the parcels seized by DRI on 12.10.2002 contained 128 SD RAM and Intel Processor valued at US$69,800, which included the value of 50 Processors, which were not shown in the invoices recovered from the parcels. In respect of one parcel, there was a declaration regarding contents and/or value, whereas the value declared on the remaining three parcels was far less as compared to the actual value. He specifically stated that this double set of declaration was done as per arrangement with Gulati for the purposes of evading duty. During investigation, it was fund that the petitioner being the owner of VIST International, Singapore, would consign the goods through speed post route to accused No. 1 Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and the Consignment Note on the parcel would not carry true declaration regarding description of the goods being imported. It was also stated by accused No.2 in his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, that the documents seized from the godown of Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. included a blank invoice of VIST International, Singapore in the name of Beam Technologies and it was maintained in their computer and these formats were used in their regular import for preparing invoice for custom purpose.

(3.) A show cause notice dated 7th April 2003 was issued to the petitioner under Section 124 of Customs Act in connection with seizure of the above referred computer parts at Speed Post Centre, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi on 12th October 2002. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 112 of Customs Act was imposed upon the petitioner on 9th June 2005. However, in an appeal filed by him, CEGAT set aside the penalty imposed on him. Thus petition for quashing the complaint has been filed primarily on the ground that the petitioner having been exonerated by CEGAT, his prosecution under Section 135 of Customs Act cannot continue.