Vijay Kumar Vyas, JThe petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2018 for offences u/s 132, 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 punishable u/s 135(1)(i)(A).

2.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a Bill of Entry No.5275518 dated 16.05.2016 for clearance of 16 Sets of Paper Cup Machines. Appraising Group raised query on 16.05.2016 asking the party to declare make, model and to submit previous evidence of clearance of the same items. The CHA filed reply via e-mail 17.05.2016 and declared model of all 16 machines as TW-D16. Thereafter, the Appraising Group ordered for first check examination.

2.2 On 17.05.2016, DRI, Jaipur called to hold the consignment of the said Bill of Entry. DRI officers inspected the consignment and found the Model No. mentioned on all the 16 machines as "DEBAO D-16". The DRI officers on reasonable belief that the above machines being mis-declared, both in terms of description as well as value, seized the 16 machines under Section 110 of the Customs Act vide Panchnama dated 17.05.2016.

3. The petitioner did not co-operate in the investigation. Time and again, summons were issued to him to appear before the authority. Thereafter, a complaint u/s 174 and 175, IPC was filed before the Magistrate of the jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per declared value of Rs.54.86 lacs, duty of Rs.14.50 lacs was deposited on 16.05.2016. However, department excessively and mala-fidely valued the machines at Rs.1.36 crores and seized the same, which were released later on after intervention of the appellate authority, on submission by the petitioner of bank guarantee of Rs.15 lacs and on furnishing a bond for Rs.1.36 crores. After release of the machines, without any justification the petitioner has been arrested.

5. The petitioner had replied the show cause notice dated 08.05.2017 issued by the department. The valuation of the machines will be finally determined by the authority but final order of adjudication may take one year. Arrest and prosecution of the petitioner is against the circular dated 23.10.2015 issued by the department in this regard. Difference of duty assessed by the department and paid by the petitioner is only Rs.21.50 lacs and as such it is less than Rs.50 lacs, so also the difference of value assessed by the department and as per petitioner, is only Rs.81.14 lacs, which is below Rs.1 crore. Thus, the alleged offence is bailable one. The petitioner is behind the bar since 08.05.2018.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revenue submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Earlier also, he tried to evade the duty payable on the machines purchased by M/s Tradewell, Jaipur which is propriety company of wife of the petitioner. Since the value of goods alleged to be mis-declared is more than Rs.1 crore, the offence of the petitioner is nonbailable.

7. The petitioner did not co-operate with the revenue. Therefore, he was arrested. If the petitioner is granted bail, then he will never co-operate with the authorities for investigation of the case.

8. Learned counsel Ms Manjeet Kaur submitted that the economic offences are class apart and must be dealt with seriously as the whole society gets affected. In support, she cited the following decisions :

1. State of Gujarat v/s Mohan Lal Jeetmal Ji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 ,

2. Nimmagadda Prasad v/s CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 ,

3. Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy v/s CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439.

9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record.

10. Section 135(1) of the Customs Act reads as under :

"135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions. - (1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person -

(a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in mis-declaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods, or

(b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111or section 113, as the case may be,

(c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 113, or

(d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with export of goods, he shall be punishable, -

(i) in the case of an offence relating to (A)any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or

(B)the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding [fifty lakh] of rupees; or.

(C)such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; or

(D)fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds [fifty lakh] of rupees,

with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine:

Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one years;

(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both]"

11. In view of above, without commenting on the merit and de-merit of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner has already furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.15 lacs and a bond of Rs.1.36 crores and the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the revenue in further proceedings, so also to the fact that he is behind the bars since 08.05.2018, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the instant matter.

12. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

13. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner, Pankaj Jain S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain arrested in F. No.DRI/DZU/JRU/19/ENG-24/INT-1/2016, by Intelligence Officer, DRI Regional Unit, Jaipur shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50, 000/- and one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he will co-operate the revenue in further proceedings and appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.