Dismissed

Arshad Husain Baig v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Mumbai

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009APPLN/3130/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay reviewed a bail application filed by an applicant accused of involvement in a racket for evading customs duty on imported super bikes. The court found that the applicant's release would frustrate the investigation as the main racketeer remains at large and there is a risk of tampering with evidence. Consequently, the application for bail was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; applicant's detainment continued.

Arshad Husain Baig Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3130 OF 2009

¶3

Arshad Husain Baig ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Anr. ..... ..... ...Respondents

¶4

Mr.Jaideep Lele i/by Mr.Devendra Shukla, Adv. for the applicant Mr.H.J.Dedhia, App for the State,

¶5

Mr.Francis Saldanha, Sp.P.P. For respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 28^th July, 2009.

¶7

PC:

¶8

According to the respondent Directorate of Revenue Intelligence an intelligence was received by the Officers of DRI indicating that some fraudulent importers are importing super bikes in India by first disassembling them abroad and importing the said disassembled bikes in consignments by declaring them as spare parts. The importers then reassemble these parts in India and sale them as super bikes. By following the aforesaid modus operandi these fraudulent importers are able to evade the customs duty and earn huge profits in the process. It is stated that in case of new motor bikes the basic customs duty leviable is at the rate of 60% ad valorem whereas for the spare parts the basic customs duty is leviable at the rate of 10% ad valorem. Taking advantage of the differential duty leviable on motor bikes and the spare parts fraudulent imports of new bikes are made after its disassembling in the foreign country and by imports of spare parts. It is also the case of the respondent that the super bikes after their assembling in India are registered at various RTO offices on the basis of fictitious and forged documents. As per the procedure adopted by RTO imported super bikes can

¶9

¶10

be registered only on submission of bills of entry. As the super bikes are imported by mis-declaring them as bike parts or spare parts bogus and/or forged bills of entry and other concerned documents are prepared and submitted to RTO authority for registration of super bikes. It is claimed that bogus bills of entry are prepared on the basis of passport copies of individuals on payment of meager amounts. After bikes are registered in the name of passport holder the same are immediately transferred to the actual users on the basis of pre-signed transfer forms. It is asserted by the respondent that investigation carried out till date has revealed that around 630 imported super bikes have been registered with various RTOs. Verification of registration of documents have revealed that bills of entry submitted to various RTOs in cases of 547 bikes are forged and customs duty is evaded to the tune of more than Rs.30 crores. According to the respondent seven persons are involved in such imports one of them being the present applicant. Five persons were arrested in connection with the crime. It is contended that as the particulars of bike parts are not mentioned in the bills of entry it is very difficult to co-relate the same with the bikes assembled in India which are found to be registered by filing bogus bills of entry and hence process of investigation is slow. The respondent has been able to connect the applicant atleast with three bikes which are imported under five bills of entry. The applicant has claimed that the said imports are made by his employee by name Shri Amjad Kadri who expired in June, 2008 due to blood cancer. According to the respondent with a view to verify the authenticity of the applicant’s version statement of Sayyed Zahoor Ahmed Kadri father of Amjad Kadri was recorded and he, inter alia, stated that his son was an employee of the applicant and was diagnosed blood cancer in the year 2006 and expired in 2008. Sayed Z.A.Kadri has stated that his son Amjad Kadri had no financial capacity to import super bikes or parts thereof. The statement of customs house agent is also recorded who carried

¶11

¶12

out the customs clearing jobs in respect of five bills of entry. According to the statement of customs clearing house agent he had carried out job of imports customs clearance for the present applicant and he has stated to have received payment of Rs.2,20,000/- vide three cheques from the applicant. According to the respondent this payment is corroborated by the bank statement of the applicant.

¶13

According to the applicant he has never dealt with Ravindra Maruti Mansukh the clearing agent except for handing over certain documents to him on behalf of his employee Amjad Kadri. Amjad Kadri expired in June, 2008, whereas one of the bills of entry is dated 13.6.2008. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant’s statements were recorded on four occasions prior to his arrest during the period of his custody over a period of one month only one statement has been recorded and the applicant has been interrogated only once. It is also submitted that three persons who are said to have been involved in the illegal import of the bike parts are released on bail. From the perusal of the orders it is seen that one of them was released as charge sheet was not filed within statutory period whereas in the other case investigation was completed and third accused was released after 49 days. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that further detention of the applicant in custody would not be in furtherance of cause of investigation and personal liberty need to be honoured. From the record it does appear that the main person who is heading the racket by name Nadir Ali is not as yet arrested and is stated to have fleed to Dubai. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has expressed an apprehension that in the event of release of the present applicant he would be in a position to influence others and tamper with the evidence which would frustrate the investigation. It is emphatically submitted that atleast for some more time the applicant should not be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

¶14

¶15

as the value of the bikes allegedly imported by the applicant under the five bills of entry pertaining to three bikes is Rs.50 lacs having regard to the rate of duty leviable on new bikes vis-a-vis the spare parts an amount of evasion of duty would not exceed Rs.30 lacs and hence offence would be punishable for a period of three years. The value of the imported bikes which are till date connected to the applicant though are tentatively valued at Rs.50 lacs it cannot be lost sight of the fact that as yet investigation is not over and hence gravity of the offence cannot be judged at this stage. Having regard to the fact that a racket is operating which is resulting in causing loss of revenue to the Government by evasion of customs duty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for release of the applicant on bail. In the result application stands rejected.

¶16

28.7.2009.

¶17

Arshad Husain Baig v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad Husain Baig v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit B. Zota and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Krishna Gholap and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Krishna Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Revansidha Ramchandra Jeurgi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Shankar Markad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manjusha Shete Vs the State of Maharashtra