TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous firm and that no offence is made out against him under Section 135 of the Act, as there is no allegation of evasion of duty. It is alleged that from the search of his business premises and home nothing incriminating was recovered; that he is suffering from several lethal illnesses, namely ischemic heart disease, diabetes and hypertension for which he is undergoing treatment at Escorts Hospital and Apollo Hospitals. It is further pleaded that statements of Sita Ram, Sunil Kumar, Laxmi Narayan, Bhagwati Prasad, Yashpal etc., are not admissible against him which they have already retracted and that he joined investigations on number of dates whenever he was asked. 3.Prosecution allegations in brief are : that petitioner floated three fictitious firms through dummy proprietors, namely, (i) Sanjeev Garments (India) (ii) Mandra Exports (India) and (iii) M/s. Future to export over-invoiced garments and fraudulently claim duty drawback benefits from the Government; that he has already obtained duty drawback to the tune of Rs. 2.07 crores showing exports by these dummy firms. Rs. 12.9 crores is yet to be received from abroad for the export shown by these firms. The petitioner used to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being in force with respect to such goods, or (b) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx" 7. This section and the scheme of the Act makes a clear distinction between dutiable goods or goods which are chargeable to duty, on which duty has not been paid and goods, import or export of which is subject to any prohibition, contained under the Customs Act or any other law. In respect of these two classes of goods Section 135(1)(a) envisages three situations (i) where the goods are dutiable and duty is not paid, (ii) where the import or export of goods is prohibited under the Customs Act, (iii) where the import or export of goods is prohibited by some other law. 8. Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit by notification either absolutely or subject to the condition importation or exportation of goods of any description for the purposes referred therein. 9. Section 50(2) of the Customs Act provides that the exporter of the goods while presenting shipping bill or bill of export shall at the foot thereof make a declaration as to the truth of its contents. It reads as under : "50. Entry of goods for exportation. - (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, the person attempting to export the goods also became liable to pay penalty under Section 114." It was further held :- "Apart from the furnishing of the declaration containing the true statement in all material particulars the exporter under the amended Section 12(1) is also required to affirm in the said declaration, i.e., in the document or the paper containing the declaration that the full export value of the goods will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner." 13.Therefore, misdescription of the goods or the value of the goods to be exported prima facie makes such goods prohibited in terms of Section 18(1)(a) and Section 67 of FERA read with Sections 11 and 50(2) of the Customs Act. Section 113 of the Act provides for confiscation of such goods and Section 114 of the Act provides for penalty for attempt to export improperly. The expressing words "without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act" used in Section 135 of the Customs Act clearly indicates that if any person is knowingly concerned with any fraudulent evasion of duty or prohibitions, also become liable for prosecution and punishment under the Act. Prosecution of the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case. I have been shown photocopy of the back of cheque No. 002252, dated 9-12-1999 of Punjab National Bank, New Delhi amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- issued for M/s. Mandra Exports India. I have not signed on the back side of the cheque. R.O. A.C. Sd/- November 24, 2000" Judge 16.In view of the above statement, petitioner was granted interim protection against arrest. Senior Scientific Officer, F.S.L. Delhi was directed to compare the disputed signatures of the petitioner marked Q1 and Q2 on the said cheque vis-a-vis his signatures on the admitted documents, including the vakalatnama filed in Court. The handwriting expert vide his report dated 4th December, 2000 has opined that the signatures on the said cheque (marked Q1 and Q2) are that of the petitioner. The statement made by the petitioner on oath stands belied by opinion of handwriting expert. The application of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail is liable to be rejected on this ground also. 17.Lastly, it was also argued that the petitioner is a sick and infirm person; papers regarding his past medical history have been placed on record. On the strength of these medical reports of cardiologis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
