SANGIT KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.N. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.Kejariwal, the learned PP for the Union of India.

(2.) THE applicant, who is apprehending arrest under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegation that he had avoided customs duty on the import of goods, namely, synthetic leather, P.U. coated fabrics/ leather within the last 5 years, seeks anticipatory bail. According to the applicant, he had imported the goods and he had declared the price of goods at US $ 2.25 per meter. However, the Custom authorities came to a conclusion that the international price was US $ 3.1 per meter and not U.S.$ 2.25 per metre. Accordingly, he was required to pay duty at the enhanced rate of the goods. He actually made the payment of enhanced duty and thereafter, the goods were released. However, now the customs authorities have re-opened the matter and they are likely to arrest the applicant. According to the applicant, the offence of evasion of duty under Section 135(1)(ii) is bailable but the customs authorities treat the said offence as non-bailable, in spite of declaration by this Court in several cases that the offence is bailable and therefore, he apprehends arrest and seeks anticipatory bail in the matter. According to him, there is no wilful evasion of duty. He had shown value or price of the goods as per the purchase in the international market but inspite of that he had paid the duty at the enhanced rate as assessed by the customs authorities. According to him, in view of these circumstances, chapter should have been closed. On the other hand, according to respondent nos.1 and 2, the applicant has evaded duty not only in one particular transaction but possibly in number of transactions during the last about 5 years and evasion of duty may be to the tune of Rs.8 crores and it is contended that the applicant is not co-operating in the investigation. Not only this before production of his laptop, complete data about the imports and their valuation, etc. was deleted by him and he also refused to disclose the name of person with whose help that data was deleted. That has created obstacles in the investigation of the matter. It is contended that even though in Subhash Chaudhary v. Deepak Jyala in 2005 (179) ELT 532 (Bombay), the learned Single Judge of this Court had held on 20th September, 2005 that the offences under section 135(1)(ii) of the Act is the bailable offence, the said order has been challenged before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to grant stay to the operation of the said order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence is bailable. The respondents maintained that the offence is non bailable.

(3.) SECTION 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows: