MOHAMMED AZEEM ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal petition is filed under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.No. VIII/48/02/2015-SIIB Civil P.C. pending on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) On a complaint from South India Fresh Fruits Importers Association, Chennai that the petitioner/accused, proprietor of M/s. Asra Enterprises, Hyderabad has mis-declared the origin of appeals as Afghanistan and evaded payment of customs duty by placing fake and forged documents, said to have been issued by Afghanistan Government and conducted importing business of Apples from Afghanistan through Krishnapatnam Port during the years 2014 and 2015 and availed exemption of custom duty to the tune of approximately Rs.6.60 crores under the guise of Notification No.99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. An enquiry was initiated by the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (SIIB) of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate (CPC), Vijayawada. During enquiry, the SIIB noticed 15 consignments during the period from Jan. 2014 to Jan. 2015 and the same were sent for verification to the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industries (ACCI) through Government channels. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, vide letter dated 26.05.2015, confirmed that the said 15 certificates of country of origin were fabricated and were not issued by the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The petitioner/accused has also admitted during enquiry that using fabricated certificates of country of origin, he filed bills of entry for customs clearance and claimed customs duty exemption, and hence, he is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.