KAMLESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case of non-declaration was booked by the officers of respondent No. 2 on interception of imported goods by M/s. Perfect Trading Company. The present petitioners were arrested by respondent No. 2 DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit for alleged violation of provisions of Customs act in relation to making of declaration/ non-declaration and remand petition was filed and the custody of the petitioners was procured. The Magistrate had granted custody of the petitioners by an order dated 4. 9. 04. Bail application there after was moved before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, mumbai and by an order dated 23. 9. 04 the petitioners came to be released on bail subject to certain conditions including attendance of the petitioners in the office of DRI, bail in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs each with sureties in the like amount or cash was granted. A show cause notice was issued to the present petitioners and those involved in the said offence after completion of investigation by respondent No. 2. The present petitioners along with Perfect Trading Company and others moved an application under section 127-B of the Customs Act before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission passed final order on the said applications on 8. 3. 06 an at the conclusion of para 10 in relation to penalty and prosecution observed as under :

(2.) IN view of the said order granting immunities to the present petitioners they moved an application before the Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking cancellation of bail bonds and refund of bail amount. Reply to the said application came to be filed wherein in para 3 following statement was made :

(3.) THUS what was stated before the trial court was that filing of writ petition against an order passed by the Settlement Commission was in contemplation and thus granting of relief was opposed. Strangely enough in the order passed by the trial court in para 4 it is mentioned that the advocate Smt. Punde has stated that the order of Settlement Commission is challenged by the department. The said recording is incorrect. The order of Settlement commission has not been challenged filing writ petition in the High Court is an admitted position as of today. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has placed on record a communication dated 6. 2. 08 received by her from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, signed by Vivek Mukund, Senior Intelligence officer, DRI, MZU wherein it is categorically stated that after substantial deliberations the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 7. 3. 06 has been accepted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The communication concludes thus :