The main legal point established in the judgment is that ignorance of law is not an excuse, and the interests of the people/national interest take precedence over individual rights of the citizen.

B.A. No.2593 of 2005 is filed by the first accused while B.A.No.2670 of 2005 is filed by the third accused in O.R.No.33/04-05 of the Directorate of Revenue intelligence. Cochin. These bail applications are filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first accused C.K. Boban was arrested on 18.3.2005. The third accused K.T. Charly was arrested on 1.4.2005. The first accused moved an application for bail before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Ernakulam unsuccessfully. He also filed a bail application before the Court of the Sessions Judge (Vacation Court). Ernakulam which was also dismissed. The third accused moved for bail before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence). Ernakulam, which was dismissed.

2. There are four accused persons in the case. The petitioners in the bail applications under consideration are accused Nos.1 and 3. The second accused. Ajish is an employee of a Customs Clearing Agent. The second accused was released on bail. Accused No.4 Unnikrishnan is a Customs Clearing Agent. He is absconding.

3. The first accused is an importer having import/Export Code (ICE). During 2004-2005 the first accused imported six consignments from abroad. On the basis of the intelligence information that M/s. Trichur Traders. Kunnamkulam was attempting to smuggle out of Cochin Port Trust contraband goods without customs examination, without payment of duty and without observing the Customs formalities, the Senior intelligence Officer. Directorate of Revenue intelligence. Cochin and party conducted a search. They found that M/s. Trichur Traders had filed Bill of Entry and the goods covered by the Bill of Entry were destuffed at shed No.Q10 of Cochin Port Trust. On examination. It was found that the packing list and invoice submitted along with the Bill of Entry indicated that 3600 pieces of toys were packed in 50 cartons of 72 pieces each. As per the Bill of Entry the imported cargo was declared to have a weight of 15000 kgs. However, on examination, it was found that the total weight was only 2050 kgs. The Customs House Agent was not in a position to explain the discrepancy in weight. The first accused and the third accused pleaded ignorance. On investigation. It was found that the Customs House Agent on instructions of the first accused produced the contents of Container TEXU 2222222 for Customs examination in the guise of the contends of the container IALU 1201439 and tired to hide the contends of the container IALU 1201439 and evade customs examination of the goods. On further examination. It was found that the contends of the container IALU 12021439 were 7.80.000 batteries. 33.000 CF lamps, garments worth Rs. 4,10,400/- and 27 other items of assorted quantity having a value of about Rs.1.80.875/-. The import of batteries is not permitted as per Bureau of Indian Standard norms. For CF lamps, heavy anti-dumping duty is payable. Garments would attract very high rate of specified duty. It was found on examination that the goods would attract customs duty of Rs.15 lakhs and anti-dumping duty of Rs.71 lakhs. Totaling Rs.88 lakhs. The contents of both the containers were seized on 17.3.2005.

4. Statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were taken from accused Nos.1 and 3. They admitted the import of the goods in question and their attempt to evade payment of duty. In the statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act accused No.1 admitted that three months before he had imported a container containing CF lamps, batteries, garments etc. He could not clear the same since they attracted prohibitions and high rate of duty. Therefore, he re-exported the same. Accused No.1 went to Dubai and again imported the same goods with the intention to get the same cleared by adopting dubious methods. The further case against the first accused is that he had smuggled out goods on earlier occasions also on the strength of wrong declaration. I