Mumbai, March 5, 2024 – Anirudh Krishnan Vaishnav, a director of M/s. Big Boy Machine Pvt. Ltd., has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in connection with an alleged customs duty evasion case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected Vaishnav’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 404 of 2024), citing the ongoing investigation and the seriousness of the economic offense.

Vaishnav was arrested on February 5, 2024, in connection with File No. CUS/SIIB/INT/1/2024-SIIB-O/O COMMR-CUS-IMP-I-ZONE-I-MUMBAI, for offenses punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleges that Vaishnav’s company, which imports and sells second-hand cranes from China, misdeclared the manufacturing year and capacity of the cranes in 33 bills of entry over the past two years to undervalue the goods and evade customs duty. The declared assessable value of the goods was ₹28,63,07,873, with a paid duty of ₹7,94,07,489. However, intelligence suggests that the actual manufacturing year was newer and the capacity was higher than declared. The prosecution also alleges that the company tampered with the chassis numbers and detail plates of the cranes. This resulted in an alleged evasion of approximately ₹4 crore in customs duty.

Defense Arguments:

Vaishnav’s advocate, Sahil Salvi, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He contended that the prosecution’s case was based on assumptions and that there was no evidence to suggest that Vaishnav had tampered with the chassis numbers and detail plates. He also disputed the legality of his arrest, claiming a lack of “reasons to believe” as required by law. The defense cited several legal precedents to support their arguments.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Sasne, after reviewing the arrest memo and the prosecution’s submissions, noted that there was specific evidence indicating misdeclaration of the cranes’ manufacturing year and capacity, leading to significant duty evasion. The court also highlighted the allegation of tampering with chassis numbers and detail plates in 26 out of 38 imported cranes.

The court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and involved the verification of documents and the ascertainment of the correct details of the cranes. Given the substantial allegations of tampering and the potential for the accused to influence the investigation, the court concluded that releasing Vaishnav on bail would hamper the investigation.

The court also addressed the defense’s argument regarding the deletion of Vaishnav’s Google account, stating that it was “not natural, probable and acceptable” that an employee would accidentally delete such personal records. The court found substance in the prosecution’s contention that Vaishnav intentionally deleted emails related to the crane transactions.

Considering the seriousness of the economic offense, the substantial amount of evaded duty, and the ongoing investigation, the court concluded that Vaishnav was not entitled to bail at this stage.

Conclusion:

The court rejected Vaishnav’s bail application, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation into the alleged customs duty evasion and the tampering of crane details.