TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce - petition dismissed. - Criminal Revision Petition No. 1557 of 2017 & Crl. M.P. No. 15676 of 2017 and Crl. Revision Petition No. 47 of 2018 & Crl. M.P. No. 321 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. Shri V.T. Goplan, Senior Counsel, V. Raghava chari for R. Jayaprakash, G.P. Bhargan, for the Appellant. Shri K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent. ORDER These two Revision Petition was filed by A1 and A4 in C.C. No. 1 of 2014 on the file of Principal Special Judge for C.B.I cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition filed for discharging them. Though separate petition were filed and separate orders have been passed with common results. Since, the facts involved in the matter and legal issues raised by the petitioners are one and the same. This Court passes the following : COMMON ORDER Brief facts leading to the Revision Petition : 3. Based on the source information, the First Information Report in RC MA 1/2012/A-0009 was registered on 29-2-2013 by C.B.I., ACB-Chennai. 4. According to the First Information Report, under the guise of Air-conditione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Tariff Head for 8514 10 90 denotes full Air Conditioners the Bill of Entry should have been assessed for full Air-Conditioners. 8. After the assessment by Shri P. Kathirvel [A-1] and Shri Sanjay Kakkar [A-2] the examination order was passed on 2-9-2011 and then the Bill of entry was referred to Shri R. Mani [A-4], Appraiser of Customs, Shri S. Gugan [A-3], Examiner had recorded in the Inspector s Report that opened and examined 45 packages in the presence of CHA . In the special observation it is recorded that SANCO CFS : OPD INSPECTED S/5% OF THE PKGS FROM S/2 CONTAINERS CONTS : O GENERAL BRAND AIR-CONDITIONER MODEL AS PER INV..VEFD DESPN WRT IMPORT DOCTS PL 9. Shri R. Mani [A-4], Appraiser of Customs, Shri S. Gugan [A-3], Examiner deliberately omitted to revert the subject Bill of entry to the assessing group for reassessment in spite of finding the import goods to be Air-Conditioners during examination and not part of air-conditioner as described in Bill of Entry. Shri. R. Mani [A-4], Appraiser of Customs, Shri S. Gugan [A-3], Examiner deliberately failed to revert the subject Bill of Entry to the assessing group for re-assessment of unit price and the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made a special observation that the packages contain O General Brand Air-Conditioner, while so, no criminality could be attributed to the petitioner. The Customs Manual does not casts upon him any duty on the petitioner to revert the subject bill of entry as alleged in the final report. The contention of the Revision Petition in 47 of 2018 : 15. The Criminal prosecution against this petitioner is unsustainable since, the petitioner is not the only person who was involved in the clearance of the complaint transaction. The official procedure in respect of the bill of entry submitted in online has to be assessed by the appraiser [A2 in this case], after assessment, few bills are checked at random, such cross check is done by the Assistant Commissioner [In this case the petitioner]. Once the document accompanied the bill of entry is verified, the actual physical verification of the goods is done at Container Freight Station (CFS). The examiner at Container Freight Station has to make the physical verification and check whether the description of the goods as declared in the Bills of Entry submitted online match the goods actually imported. Unless the official who is responsib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment. 17. In support, of his submission, the Learned Counsel for the respondent would refer the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. 18. From the reading of the statements more particularly the statements of Lakshmikanthan, Assistant Commissioner of Customs [LW. 6], statement of Lalithakumari, Appraiser [LW. 5], statement of Jayashrirajan, Examiner Central Intelligence Unit [LW. 4], this Court finds that a prima facie case of conspiracy for allowing full Air-Conditioner by misdeclaration code as parts of Air-Conditioner and also assigning wrong Customs Tariff 8415 10 90 which is meant for other items but not for part of Air-Conditioner or full Air-Conditioner the petitioners herein had deliberately allowed the goods cleared both at customs house as well as at the Shed. In spite of physical verification and even after patent mis-declaration in the documents such as bill of entry and the Customs Tariff Code, they have allowed the importer to clear the goods based on forged invoice and Bills of Entry. 19. Quashing of complaint on technical reason for want of sanction will not ensure any benefit to the co-accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
