Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Valuation of Goods Should Exceeds Rs. 1 Crore to Be Prosecuted Under Custom Duty Evasion

2 min read

Paridhi Arya

Published on May 28, 2022 at 14:24 IST

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that Prosecution under Section 135 (1) (a) of Customs Act cannot be made against Petitioner as the value of goods is less than 1 Crore Rupees.

The Court pointed out that witnesses are not examined in the case and the Order of Summons didn’t the reason of Summons.

The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has filed Criminal Complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1) (a) of Customs Act. It was alleged that the Petitioner’s company import electronics use in public addressing without paying the custom duty.

On July 13, 2009 the search in the premises of company was conducted and goods detained for which accused has provided the approximated value but no document was given. Later the retail invoices was found fake.

The Trial Court issued Summons, aggrieved by this Order Criminal Revision was filed by Petitioner which got dismissed.

The Petitioner contended that he cannot be charged under Section 132 of Custom Act as Petitioner didn’t signed or declared anything with knowledge or belief that it is false.

Under Section 111 of Custom Act no violation has been made as Petitioner is not an importer or associated with illegal import of goods subjected to seizure.

Under Section 135(1) (a) the violation will be considered when market value of goods are exceeds from 1 Crore Rupees but in present case it around 77,16,228 Rupees.

The Petitioner also claimed that the complaint was barred by the limitation as per Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code.

The Court held that Petitioner didn’t furnish any False Document and so cannot be charged under Section 132 of Customs Act and complaint was barred by limitation.

The Court also observed that no Witness is examined in the case. However, it is the duty of department to prove the case against Petitioner.