9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the Assessment Group -I custom of Tuticorin during period 2008-2012 along with the proprietor of M/s. Unik Taders and Manager M/s.Sindhu Cargo Service Pvt Ltd the custom House Agent. According to the reliable information, pursuant to the conspiracy among these persons, Star Aniseed imported from Vietnam and China were under valued and Special Additional Duty (SAD) was sanctioned causing loss to the Customs Department to the tune of Rs. 2.78 crores and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. 3.After investigation it was found that the customs officials of the Assessment Group- I which has cleared the Bills of Entry pertaining to M/s.Unik Traders were not criminally responsible for clearing under valued bills. The officers who were incharge of the intelligence (SIIB) office of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Tuticorin, were actually responsible for clearing the under valued Bills of Entry for the import made by M/s. Unik Traders. Hence final report has been filed against them. 4. The revision petitioners herein are accused 1 to 5 before the II Additional District for CBI cases , Madurai in C.C.No. 7 of 2014. The final report filed by CBI alleges that P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controlling officers. They all dishonestly suppressed the information from the higher officials. They have created a Urgent Office Note (UO Note) stating falsehood that the Commissioner had persued the records of the Bills of Entry and allowed to clear the Bills of Entry accepting the declared value. Based on these U.O.letters which first eminated from A1(Ramesh) vide UO letter No.C.No.VIII/48/33/2009-SIIB dated 09.11.2010, all the suspected Bills of Entry presented by M/s.Unik Traders were cleared though they were with under valued. Thus caused wrongful loss to the Department of Customs to the tune of Rs. 92,24,730/-. 7. The contentions raised before the trial court in their discharge petitions are that CBI is not proper officer to decide about under valuation. The Customs Act which is a composite Act provides for valuation as well as procedure to be adopted in case of under valuation. The Acts and Rules framed under the Customs Act empowers the proper officer to levy duty on import based on the transaction value. If there is any doubt in the transaction value Section 14 of the Customs Act provides guidelines how the valuation of the goods to be assessed. 8. In the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The trial court considering the materials placed by the prosecution and the counter, declined to entertain the discharge petitions on the ground that whether offence of conspiracy or cheating made out is to be decided after appreciating the evidence and documents. For the present, to frame charge, the statement of witnesses and documents relied make out case for prosecution. 13. In respect of A4. Shri Hanif K.Thara, the importer and his son A5 Asif H.Thara who is looking after the day to day affairs of M/s. Unik Taders, 13 Bills of Entry checked and verified by A1 to A3. The Superintendents of custom department and cleared them during the period October 2010 and January 2011. 14. Discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., filed by them on the ground that, the office of the Commissioner of customs has issued a show cause notice dated 28.03.2014 regarding under valuation of goods covered under 13 Bills of Entry and the same is matter of adjudication pending. When authority under the Act has seized of the matter whether really they under valued in the import of Star Aniseed is true or not, CBI cannot prosecute the petitioners based on the inference that there is under valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Prevention and Corruption Act. 18. Whereas the specific case of the prosecution is that the 3 UO letters : (1)UO letter No.CN VIII/48/33/2009-SIIB dated 09.11.2010 sent by P.Ramesh (A-1) to the assessing officer in respects of the following Bills of Entry. i)B.O.E No.2247452 , dated 12.10.2010 i)B.O.E No.2247464 , dated 12.10.2010 i)B.O.E No.2247459 , dated 12.10.2010 i)B.O.E No.3873 , dated 04.10.2010 (2) UO letter in C.No.VIII/48/2/2009-SIIB, dated 26.11.2010 sent by K.N.R.Sugumaran(A-2) to the assessing officer in respect of the following Bills of Entry. i)B.O.E No.2355152 , dated 23.11.2010 i)B.O.E No.2355401 , dated 23.11.2010 i)B.O.E No.2355388 , dated 23.11.2010 (3)UO letter in C.No.VIII/48/2/2009-CIIB, dated 20.12.2010 sent by K.N.R.Sugumaran(A-2) to the assessing officer in respect of the following Bills of Entry. i)B.O.E No.2430039 , dated 14.12.2010 (4) The UO letter No.C.No.VIII/48/33/2009-SIIB, dated 21.01.2011 sent by R.Sundar (A-3) to the assessing officer in respect of the Bills of i)B.O.E.No.2577295, dated 13.01.2011 and ii)B.O.E.No.2577296, dated 13.01.2011 were dishonestly sent by the above 3 accused persons without obtaining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s presented by the CHA of the importer M/s.Unik traders. Though it was brought to the notice of CIIB wing, the accused A1 to A3 had suppressed the communication from the knowledge of the Commissioner. They have issued the UO letters with misleading facts. The statement of Thiru.S.Santhana Muhu(LW-16) discloses the culpability of the accused persons and the violation of procedure and law in allowing M/s.Unik traders, Bangaloru to clear goods with under valuation. The comparative chart regarding prevailing price of Aniseed throughout the world as imported in various ports of India is furnished by Ranjith Kumar (LW-15). The Superintendents who have verified the B.O.E's and have stated that the declared value as found in the invoice was in variably found very low compared to Directorate of Valuation (DOV) but the communication sent by the accused 1 to 3 from CIIB wing permitted to clear the Bills as per the declared value. 23.The judgments cited by the counsels regarding the comparative value/NIDB data which form base for DOV data it is held that though it may not be a conclusive proof but it is definitely a source to determine the value of the goods as per Section 14 of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
