The Additional Sessions Court at Panvel has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two directors of a commission-agent company in connection with an investigation into the alleged systematic undervaluation of walnuts imported from Chile, resulting in suspected Customs duty evasion of approximately ₹24.4 crore.
Additional Sessions Judge Vimalnath S. Tiwari observed that economic offences of such magnitude require custodial interrogation to trace the alleged flow of illicit funds, uncover parallel financial channels and identify the complete network of beneficiaries. The court held that granting pre-arrest protection in such circumstances would severely handicap the investigating agency and prejudice the public exchequer.
Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026
Alleged Undervaluation of Chilean Walnuts
According to the Customs Department, specific intelligence was received about the large-scale and systematic undervaluation of “in-shell walnuts” originating from Chile and imported into India by Rich Valley Dry Fruit Private Limited.
Search and investigation proceedings conducted at the Customs House on May 25, 2026 allegedly led to the recovery of sales contracts and proforma invoices. The department claimed that a comparison of these documents with the values declared in the Bills of Entry revealed that the actual transaction values were substantially higher than those declared before Customs.
The alleged suppression of the actual transaction value purportedly resulted in Customs duty evasion of approximately ₹24.4 crore, causing a substantial loss to the public exchequer.
The court’s order records that Dharmesh Vasudevbhai Pariyani, a director of Rich Valley Dry Fruit Private Limited, was arrested in connection with the transactions and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Uran. His bail application was subsequently rejected.
Role Attributed to Commission-Agent Company
During the subsequent investigation, the Customs Department allegedly found that Tajir Private Limited, of which the two applicants were directors, acted as a central commission agent and intermediary between Chilean supplier La Invernada and Indian importers.
The order records that Tajir Private Limited received commission income exceeding ₹1 crore during the financial year 2024-25 in connection with these dealings.
Following the issuance of summons dated June 11, 2026, directing the applicants to appear before the Customs Department on June 15, 2026, they approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The court initially granted them ad-interim protection through an order dated June 22, 2026.
Applicants Claim They Were Mere Facilitators
Appearing for the applicants, their counsel contended that they were established businessmen and had been falsely implicated in the investigation.
It was submitted that the applicants were not holders of the Importer Exporter Code concerning the imports under scrutiny. Their company had allegedly acted only as a facilitator between La Invernada and Rich Valley Dry Fruit Private Limited to promote and market Chilean walnuts in India on a commission basis.
The applicants maintained that they had neither participated in nor exercised control over the pricing terms negotiated between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer.
Their counsel further argued that there was no live consignment presently detained or intercepted by the Customs authorities. The consignment in question had reportedly been assessed under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, examined and granted an out-of-charge order after the certificate of origin was defaced.
It was also argued that the Customs allegations were founded on speculation, presumptions and conjectures. According to the applicants, the case was documentary in nature, all relevant records were already with the department, and no further discovery or recovery remained to be made.
Describing themselves as tax-paying citizens having deep roots in society, the applicants expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and requested the court to confirm the ad-interim protection granted earlier.
Customs Alleges Withholding of Critical Records
Opposing the applications, the Customs Department submitted that the proceedings concerned a grave economic offence involving alleged duty evasion of ₹24.4 crore.
The department argued that the assessment and clearance of goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act did not prevent it from undertaking a subsequent statutory investigation when fraud or misdeclaration was discovered after clearance.
Customs further alleged that although Tajir Private Limited had earned more than ₹1 crore in commission from the Chilean supplier, no supporting physical or digital records—including contracts, emails and commission statements—were found during verification at the applicants’ business premises.
It was alleged that staff members avoided answering relevant questions and that important employees involved in communications with the foreign supplier resigned during the investigation. According to the department, the applicants had withheld critical material and had not extended genuine cooperation.
Customs consequently argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover concealed electronic devices, trace parallel overseas remittances, identify persons responsible for allegedly suppressing records and unravel a wider conspiracy involving several domestic importers.
Court Finds Prima Facie Case of Organised Economic Offence
After considering the rival submissions and the department’s reply, the court concluded that the material disclosed a prima facie case of an organised economic offence involving Customs duty evasion of approximately ₹24.4 crore.
The court held that the applicants’ contention that they were merely commission agents could not absolve them at the preliminary stage, particularly in view of their company’s substantial financial dealings exceeding ₹1 crore with the foreign supplier and their alleged pivotal role in facilitating the imports.
Significantly, the court observed that the total absence of underlying commercial correspondence, contracts and digital records from the applicants’ premises, coupled with the resignation of key employees, strongly pointed towards the deliberate suppression of material evidence.
Applicants’ Precedents Distinguished
The applicants relied upon the decisions in Kamlesh Hastimal Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra and Natarajan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police. The court, however, found that both decisions were inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
It observed that the decision in Kamlesh Hastimal Gandhi concerned routine criminal matters in which the investigation depended on existing documentary evidence and the accused had demonstrated transparent cooperation. In the present matter, the court noted, key physical and electronic records connected with La Invernada were allegedly missing from the applicants’ premises, making custodial recovery necessary.
The court also distinguished Natarajan on the ground that it dealt with a prosecution founded upon vague conjectures. In the present case, the department had produced prima facie material, including recovered sales contracts and proforma invoices allegedly showing higher actual transaction values.
Reliance was also placed on Sanjay Kumar Kantilal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, where anticipatory bail had been granted in respect of offences under Sections 135(1)(i)(A) and 135(1)(i)(B) of the Customs Act after the investigation had concluded.
The court distinguished that decision, noting that the present investigation involved Sections 104, 104(4)(b), 104(6)(a), 104(6)(c), 111(m), 111(o), 111(q), 114AA, 132 and 135(1) of the Customs Act, along with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It further held that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice by Customs could not, by itself, constitute a ground for granting anticipatory bail.
Economic Offences Require Stringent Bail Standard
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, the Sessions Court observed that economic offences constitute a distinct class and require a different and more stringent approach while considering bail because of their serious impact on the public exchequer.
The court also referred to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement while emphasising the importance of custodial interrogation in investigating complex financial transactions and conspiracies.
It further relied upon Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal to observe that investigative powers under the Customs Act operate independently of formal adjudication.
The court stated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted routinely where the accusations are grave and there exists an imminent risk of evidence being concealed or tampered with.
Undertaking to Cooperate Found Insufficient
The court held that a broad undertaking by the applicants to comply with bail conditions could not substitute active and transparent cooperation with the investigating agency.
It concluded that the applicants had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for the exercise of discretionary relief under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application and vacated the ad-interim protection granted to the applicants on June 22, 2026. It also directed that the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, be informed of the order.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
