Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 277 - HC - CustomsSmuggling of gold - Arrest on the basis of seizure - Rejection of anticipatory bail - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- any argument canvassed with respect to provisions under Section 104 of the Customs Act, before and after amendment, that previously the offences were bailable and now some of them are non-bailable cannot come to the assistance of petitioner to contend that whatever offences continuously carried out by him in relation to the evasion of duty which was detected later after amendment has to be considered separately constituting only bailable offence. When all such transactions could be reckoned together for determining the quantum of value of goods where an offence over evasion of duty is detected after the amended act, there is no merit in the plea made for treating the earlier transactions as constituting only bailable offences. Duty free goods imported in a unit of Special Economic Zone if it is brought to the domestic market without authority violating the statutory prescriptions, it is a clear case of evasion of customs duty, and, then, penalties covered by the Customs Act would apply with all force - it is a clear case having enough ground to suspect complicity of petitioner in the offence alleged, and this is not a fit case where petitioner can be extended the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Conduct of petitioner also disentitle him to seek the discretionary relief as it is noticed that he had moved applications twice before the Sessions court. After the first application moved by him was dismissed, he moved another application before the same court. Strangely enough that was entertained and later disposed on merits by the learned Sessions Judge without taking note that the relief under Section 438 of the Code is purely discretionary and in the absence of an exceptional case showing that miscarriage of justice would follow if second application is not entertained, no party is entitled to move successive applications for such discretionary relief before the same court - Appellant not entitled to relief - Decided against appellant.
|