Case Law Details
Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Mumbai Session Court)
In a significant development, the Bombay Session Court has granted bail to Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav in the case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The case involves allegations of undervaluation of imported lamination pouches over a period of five years. This article provides an analysis of the court’s decision and its implications.
The application filed by Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav sought his release on bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant, who is one of the partners of Kabir Traders, is accused of undervaluing stationary items imported from China to evade custom duty. However, the applicant denies these allegations and claims to have followed proper valuation procedures. He has even deposited a significant amount with the government to demonstrate his innocence.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the offense is a serious economic offense and that the investigation is still at an initial stage. The co-accused Mansukh Vaishnav alleged that Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav used to undervalue goods during importation and remit the balance amount overseas through an Angadia network.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court examined relevant sections of the Customs Act, particularly Sections 14 and 17, which pertain to the valuation of goods and the assessment of duty, respectively. The court noted that no speaking order was passed in this case, and there was no re-assessment done by the proper officer. The prosecution’s claim of a loss of Rs. 6-7 crores to the government was disputed, with the court observing that the approximate duty liability was mentioned as Rs. 7-8 crores in the prosecution’s reply.
The court concluded that the amount involved in the case, although significant, should not be the sole basis for refusing bail. It noted that the accused has been in custody for a considerable period, and the investigation is almost complete. The case largely depends on documentary evidence, and there is nothing remaining to be seized from the accused. Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY SESSION COURT
1. This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with DRI/MZU/F/INT38/2023 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit No.13, Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 132, 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962.
2. It is alleged by the applicant/accused that the applicant is one of the partners of Kabir Traders, carrying on its business activity of importing stationary items. The import goods if not prohibited then proper officer give the clearance and assess charges payable under this Act. The applicant/accused allegedly undervaluing stationary items that being are imported from China. The Chinese suppliers to evade the custom duty, since last 5 years, this being is continued at the hands of applicant/accused. But applicant never undervalued the goods. He has make proper valuation more so over he has deposited an amount of Rs.25 Lacs with the Government. No opportunity was given to the applicant/accused to prove his innocence by producing substantial documentary evidence. The applicant/accused is in the custody of respondent since 26.04.2023. So, nothing remains to be seized from the applicant/accused. Hence, prayed for releasing him on bail.
3. The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply vide Exh.02. It is alleged by the prosecution that the coaccused Mansukh Vaishnav stated that the applicant/accused used to undervalue the goods while importation. It is also stated by him that applicant/accused used to prepare undervalued commercial invoices in his laptop and then send it to the Chinese suppliers. The balance amount for the undervalued imports was remitted overseas by applicant/accused through Angadia network. The offence is serious economical offence. Investigation is at initial stage. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
4. Perused application and say filed by the prosecution. Heard both the advocates at length.
5. The advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that the Section 14 of the Customs Act states about the valuation of goods. Therein it is stated that the price of the goods shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date of which a bill of entry is presented. The Section 17 of the Customs Act states about the assessment of duty. Therein it is mentioned that if the person imports the goods has found to be not done the self assessment of the goods correctly then the proper officer has to reassess the duty leviable on such goods. If there is difference in the bills in self assessment and reassessment then the proper officer shall pass a speaking order.
6. The advocate for the applicant submitted that in case at hand no speaking order was passed. No reassessment was done by a proper officer and it was not communicated to the applicant/accused. The allegations against the applicant/accused that since last 5 years he is sending goods undervalued and caused loss of the Government. The applicant/accused evaded custom duty to the tune of Rs.67 Crores.
7. In the reply itself, the respondent has mentioned that they are ascertaining the exact duty liability. So, the approximate duty liability is Rs.78 Crores. In my opinion, the amount involved in the case is huge, this can not be a ground for refusing bail. While deciding the bail application, it is to be seen that whether custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is necessary, whether investigation can be carried out without the custody of accused. In case at hand, the accused was arrested long back. He is in custody of respondent since long. The investigation is almost over. Entire case depends upon the documentary evidence. Nothing remains to be seized from the possession of applicant/accused. Therefore, applicant/accused is entitled to release on the bail. Considering this, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1] Bail Application No.1242/2023 is allowed.
2] Applicant/Accused Rajesh Kumar Vaishnav, arrested in DRI/MZU/F/INT38/2023 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit No.13, Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 132, 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962 at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 13, Mumbai be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/with one or two surety/s.
3] The applicant/ accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner.
4] The applicant/ accused shall attend the office of respondent on every Wednesday between 11:00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m. till filing charge sheet.
5] Provisional cash bail in the like amount is allowed. The accused shall furnish surety within 4 weeks from the date of release from jail failing which the cash bail shall stand forfeited without any separate order to that effect.
6] The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
7] Bail before the learned Trial Court.
