Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. There was also a letter said to have been given by the petitioner/1st accused, on the basis of which 'Foreign Inward Remittance certificate" (FIRC) was obtained by Accused Nos.1 to 4, with the connivance of 5th accused, the Manager of the bank, and also some other customs officials regarding whom prosecution was not instituted and only departmental action was mooted. If the correct year of the purchase of car, namely, 1994 was mentioned, that would be a deviation of the condition precedent for importing the said car. Therefore, it was wrongly mentioned as if it was purchased in the year 1993; forged invoice dated 13.07.1993 for undervaluing the car was said to have been issued; FIRC was also obtained by production of a letter dated 08.09.199 4. Thus, the clearance of the car was made on 08.04.1994 by knowing fully well that the car was not purchased in the year 1993, that the original cost of the car was more than the declared value that the FIRC was obtained on wrong representation and that the importer Dr. Balakrishnan produced forged document, causing wrongful loss of Rs.4 lakhs to the Government of India by way of customs duty.

42. To mention again, offences founded upon the declaration under section 88, as found in the statute was interpreted in Hiralal's case and the above said term was given an extension so as to include other offences that may prima facie be made out on identical allegations i.e.of evasion of customs duty and violation of any notification issued under the said Act. Now, in this case, the wrong statement that the car was of the year 1993 and the incorrect particulars and statements given in order to obtain FIRC cannot be said that they are upon as allegations identical to the offences mentioned in section 91. In other words, they cannot get the immunity extended by Hiralal's case; as in that case, it was held that the immunity extends to offences that may prima facie be made out on identical allegations i.e. evasion of customs duty and violation of any notification. As the above allegations made in this case are not directly for evasion of customs duty etc., and as they are made for wrong importing and wrong clearance of the car, the extended immunity in the Hiralal's case may not be available in this case.

47. To sum up, even if the immunity was extended as provided in Hiralal's case to other offences that may prima facie be made out on identical allegations i.e. evasion of customs duty and violation of any notification issued under the said Act, the present facts of the case may not cover such extended immunity. This is so because allegations of false representations in issuance of FIRC and other statements falsely made as if the car was manufactured in 1993 are all matters directly connected to the clearance of the car, i.e. to say wrong import; and not to evasion of customs duty. If the allegations in this case are ultimately only for evasion of customs duty and it is in that process only, some notifications were violated, then the immunity extended in Hiralal's case may be applied. Again it is a matter to be seen only in the course of trial as to the purport of the statements made. It is another important point to see as to whether the statements and annexures to declaration under section 88 are alone based for the prosecution. In other words, in the absence of annexures to declaration under section 88 in Form I-B, it may not be very much clear as to whether the prosecution against the petitioner is founded on statements of accounts made elsewhere apart from the declaration under section 88. This can be made clear only in the course of trial. Since the tax was compromised, one cannot say that all the allegations made in the prosecution are only for evasion of customs duty and violation of any notification. In what way issuance of FIRC will have connection of customs duty is made not known. Production of supporting documents, which were found false on the side of prosecution, in order to wrongly obtain FIRC has a direct bearing upon the wrong import instead of bearing with the evasion of customs duty. It is in this view of the matter, the facts of the case are different from that in Hiralal's case. It is the paramount duty of the petitioner to demonstrate how he is entitled for application of section 91 of the Act. One easy endeavour is to make it available of all the annexures and statements in Form I-B under section 88 and showing that they are alone the rock bottom for prosecution and nothing else. That has not been done. Thus it becomes a triable point.