SANJAY AGARWAL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of source information that accused Sanjay Agarwal was trying to divert 54.096 kg gold jewellery meant for export from NSCBI airport, Kolkata to the domestic area after completion of all export formalities. The shipping bill and documents showing customs duty were filed in the name of Shri Ganesh Jewels, Hyderabad for export of the said gold jewellery to Dubai on 4/4/2018 on hand carry basis through Preet Kumar Agarwal, son of the accused. On the date of journey to Dubai for exporting the said gold jewellery, Preet went to the office of the SDO, Customs at NSCBI airport being accompanied by a preventive officer of the Customs Department. The SDO, Customs verified the sealed consignments and handed over the same to Preet Kumar Agarwal at his office itself violating the procedure of handing over the sealed boxes at the security hold or boarding area itself. After receiving the said articles, he put it to a strolley bag and handed over the strolley bag to his father, the accused herein. Then Sanjay went straight to cargo complex, broke the seals of customs affixed on the boxes and booked them with Indigo Airlines domestic cargo for delivery at Hyderabad airport. He then boarded a flight to Hyderabad using a boarding pass in the name of his son Preet. This was the precise way how huge quantity of gold ornaments, meant for export, was diverted to domestic market. Thereafter, Sanjay was intercepted by the officers of DRI.

(2.) The petitioner, his son, wife, since claimed to be divorced and other associates of the alleged offence of alleged smuggling were implicated for committing offences under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act, Sec. 12 of the Passport Act and also under the penal provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA, for short).

(3.) The petitioner purchased gold from authorised companies, like MMTC, STC etc submitting security deposit equivalent to the duty payable on the gold. The gold in question were legally purchased property of the petitioner and not smuggled goods as alleged by the opposite party. Only allegation against the petitioner is that he sold out gold jewelleries made of the said purchased gold in domestic market without exporting the same.