IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2009 SHIVRAM SAVLO GADEKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. T. George John, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 4th March, 2010 P.C. The above Writ Petition has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR and the proceedings initiated thereto being case No4/2009/EOU-1 pending before the Special Judge, Panaji Goa, against the Petitioner. The Petitioner at the relevant time was the Superintendent of Central Excise Minor Port, Panaji Goa. A complaint came to be filed by the CBI alleging offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(D) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 against the Petitioner and other accused. It is alleged that one M/s Venture Resort Holding, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa, submitted shipping bill No.283/06-07 dated 28.2.2007 to the Petitioner abovenamed on 28.2.2007 which was after the announcement of the budget which was presented in the Parliament on 28.2.2007 and by which export duty at the rate of Rs.300/- per metric tonne on the export of processed iron ore fines came to be imposed from 1.3.2007. It is alleged that the vessel M.V. TAI HARMONY arrived at Panaji port at 18.00 hours on 27.2.2007 and at the same time the captain of the vessel gave notice of readiness to the exporter. The notice of readiness by exporter was accepted. The FIR therefore discloses the alleged complicity of the Petitioner in allowing the goods to be cleared as if they were cleared on 28.2.2007 though the loading had commenced on 1.3.2007. The Petitioner in his capacity as Superintendent of Central Excise had made an endorsement on the shipping bill as on 28.2.2007. 2. It appears that the consignment of some other exporters were also shown to be cleared on 28.2.2007 as the duty became payable from 1.3.2007. Once such exporter M/s Narayan Bandekar and Sons Pvt.Ltd., filed proceedings against the order passed by the Central Excise and Customs ( Appeals) Goa, for refund of the amount of duty which they paid under protest. It is pertinent to note that the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, at Mumbai has recorded a finding in para 12 of the order which is part of the compilation which was handed over on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that it is clear that the loading was started on 1.3.2007 and the ship arrived at the port on 1.3.2007. The Tribunal has further recorded that since the arrival of the ship the loading started on 1.3.2007 with the approval of the Customs and since it is so held the said date i.e. 1.3.2007 is the relevant date for determining the rate of duty,and consequently the exporter becomes ineligible for the refund of export duty paid. Though the said order of the Tribunal has been impugned in this Court by way of Writ Petition and the order of the Tribunal has been stayed, suffice it to say that for the purpose of present Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that on the arrival of the ship the loading was started on 1.3.2007 is material. 3. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the clearance of the export consignment was in terms of the circular No.6/2002-Custom dated 23.1.2002 where the examination norms for export of goods are laid down under clause (B) except in cases where there is previous intelligence no examination is contemplated. It is therefore sought to be contended that the clearance of the goods by the Petitioner without examination cannot be said to be an offence. It is further sought to be contended relying upon the challan dated 28.2.2007 that the cess which was payable was in fact paid on 28.2.2007 and was presented before the Petitioner on the said date and, therefore, the Petitioner could not be charged with any of the offences alleged against him. 4. As can be seen from the FIR the grave man of the allegation against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has allowed the goods to be cleared on the basis that they were cleared on 28.2.2007 when export duty was to become applicable from the next date i.e. 1.3.2007. As indicated above, the Petitioner at the relevant time was the Superintendent of Central Excise. The merits of the case against the Petitioner cannot be gone into at this stage. Suffice it to say that the allegations made against the Petitioner are not as baseless as sought to be made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In any event, no case for interference is made under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which can be invoked in the rarest of the rare cases. The Petitioner would also have an opportunity to urge the points which are sought to be urged in the present Petition at the time of framing of charge. 5. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*