The Mumbai Court has granted bail in the Italian furniture customs duty evasion case where the applicant was allegedly involved in the activity of misdeclaration and under valuation of imported furniture.
The bench of S.K. Fokmare (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) has observed that since last 14 days the DRI has got sufficient opportunity for interrogation with the accused. As per request of DRI on two occasions the accused was remanded in DRI custody. The DRI officers have already taken all the documents including E-mail ID’s, books of accounts, phones etc in their custody. It has been submitted by the applicant that all the electronic data available in the server from his office devices has been recovered by the DRI. Further according to the applicant he has deposited an amount of Rs. 5 crores as a customs duty to the department.
The applicant/accused is a partner in Dilusso Furniture LLP and Di Lusso, amongst others which operate under the common brand name “Source Unlimited”. The applicant has been in active business since decades. He has deep roots in the society and does not have any criminal antecedents. The applicant in the normal course of trade and business has been purchasing the goods on the basis of common trade practice. The allegations for evading the tax of Rs. 30 crores are false. The applicant prayed for the bail.
The respondent DRI has resisted the application for grant of bail and contended that, the applicant is involved in a very serious economic offence which adversely affects the economy of the country. The case is having international ramifications and granting bail to the applicant at this very crucial stage of investigation would determinately hamper the course of investigation. The investigation in the case is going on and some of the syndicate members are still at large. Releasing the applicant on bail may hamper the further course of investigation. Thus respondent DRI prayed for rejection of the application.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the Counsel for the Applicant contended that the allegations levelled against applicant/accused are based on documentary evidence. All documentary evidence has already been collected by DRI. The DRI has also conducted raids at the office godown and the residence of the applicant and has copied all the data available in the server and office devices of the applicant. The DRI has already interrogated the applicant by taking him in DRI custody. The applicant has fully co-operated in the investigation. For showing his bonafide the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs. 5 crores. The applicant is also willing to deposit the additional amount however, the bank accounts belonging to the applicant have been provisionally attached/frozen by DRI.
The court released the accused Mr. Falgun Yogendra Shroff on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with one or more sureties in like amount. Accused be provisionally released on his furnishing cash bail of Rs. 2,00,000 in lieu of surety for 2 (two) months.
The court directed the applicant to not to influence and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. He shall co-operate for further investigation of the case. He is directed to remain present as and when called by respondent in connection with investigation of this offence under written intimation, till further investigation is completed or till further order. He shall surrender his passport to the respondent for the period of six months from the date of his arrest before the respondent. The department to return passport to him after said period with due acknowledgment without any reference to the court. He shall take prior permission of the court for travelling abroad.
The court directed the applicant to furnish his residential address with proof, E-mail and telephone/mobile number to the Court and to the Department. He shall not change said addresses, telephone/mobile number without prior intimation in writing to the Court and concern Department. He shall furnish address and mobile number of two of his nearest relatives with their consent to the Court and department alongwith their address proof for contacting them if he failed to appear during further investigation before respondent and during trial of the case.
