ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI Vs. ATHISHTARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai dated 5-9-2007 in E.O.C.C. No. 342 of 2005. The respondent/accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused from all the charges framed against him. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :- The respondent/accused imported tin bend circle waste in 3 containers from Malaysia through a known contact. Based on the documents received by him through Bank, he engaged a Customs clearing agent to file a Bill of Entry No. 497999, dated 9-6-2003 for importing of 60.54 Metric Tonnes of Tin bend circle waste. Subsequently, the Department of Revenue Intelligence wants to examine the import consignment, the respondent/accused authorised one Muralidharan, the Customs clearing agent and he was present at the time of examination. In his presence a detailed examination of the import consignment was conducted on 12-6-2003, and during the examination undeclared cargo in the form of steel sheets and slit coils were found concealed at the bottom of the container covered by the declared cargo. Apart from that the total weight of the imported consignment was found to be 82.85 metric tonnes as against the declared total quantity of 60.54 metric tonnes. On segregation of the declared and undeclared consignment, the declared cargo was found to be only 4.2 metric tonnes, which was also informed to the accused that the cargo will be cleared only after the opinion received from the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML) and then the Customs clearing agent, three sheets of samples from undeclared cargo was handed over to the National Metallurgical Laboratory authorities for the purpose of testing. P.W. 4, the Technical Officer, NML, Tharamani tested the samples and given a report Ex.P6. Since the respondent/accused has deliberately concealed MS/GI sheets and stainless steel slit in coils underneath tin bend circle waste and that the said importer had misdeclared the import cargo with an intention to evade Customs duty which is punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act, the complaint has been filed against the respondent/accused.

(3.) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and the accused denied the same. In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 4 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were exhibited.