In a setback to the Customs department, a Mumbai court granted relief to a customs house agent and an importer who were arrested in connection with an alleged attempt to export psychotropic substances in commercial quantity, violating the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Case Details
The case pertains to an export consignment dated May 13, filed by Customs Broker M/s Atharva Logistics on behalf of exporter M/s Medigen Pharma for a consignee based in Somalia. According to Customs officials, the consignment was examined on June 2 under a detailed Panchama in the presence of independent witnesses, the customs broker, and the exporter.
During scrutiny, officials discovered that one of the declared pharmaceutical items contained Chlordiazepoxide, a psychotropic substance listed under the NDPS Act, for which prior permission from the Narcotics Commissioner is mandatory. The consignment contained 10,000 tablets of the drug, and the total molecular quantity was calculated at 1,400 grams, exceeding the notified commercial quantity limit of 500 grams under the NDPS Act. The goods were subsequently seized on suspicion of being exported illegally in contravention of the NDPS Act and Customs Act.
Arrests and Remand Proceedings
The Customs arrested the proprietor and IEC holder of M/s Medigen Pharma, along with the customs broker Milind Naik of M/s Atharva Logistics. Both were produced before the Customs court for remand. The prosecution alleged that the proprietor of M/s Medigen Pharma had arranged the export of the psychotropic substance concealed within pharmaceutical cargo without obtaining mandatory authorization.
The statement of Milind Arjun Naik, G-Card holder of Customs Broker M/s Atharva Logistics, was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Naik admitted to handling customs clearance formalities and filing the shipping bill for export of the consignment without verifying whether the exporter possessed the mandatory No Objection Certificate from the Narcotics Commissioner.
Defence Arguments and Court Decision
Advocate Aditya Talpade, appearing for Naik, opposed the remand and argued that the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest were identical to those cited against other accused persons. The defence also argued that the investigating agency had failed to specifically determine his role and pointed out non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions under Section 48 of the NDPS Act.
Accepting the submissions, the court was pleased to release the accused on grounds of non-compliance. Meanwhile, Customs officials informed the court that further investigation is underway to ascertain the role of the exporter, manufacturer, freight forwarder, consignee, and other intermediaries involved in the alleged export network.
