Question is not about differential duty, HC in car import case

As per the prosecution, while Sushmita Sen was in the witness box, to a specific question posed by the defence as to who paid the differential duty for the car, she had replied that it was she who had paid the differential duty from her pocket. 

But, though Sen denied the defence’s suggestion that the differential duty was paid by Harren Choksey, who had brokered the sale of the car to her, she later addressed a letter dated October 18, 2017 to DRI, Mumbai, stating that the differential duty was partly paid by Choksey and it was not fully paid from her pocket, as stated by her in her evidence. 

After receiving the said communication, the senior intelligence officer Asha Panicker had sent a letter dated January 11, 2018 to Sen calling upon her to forward the documents such as copies of Bank statements to show that Choksey had transferred a part of the differential duty to her. Following this, Sen sent a letter dated January 31, 2018 enclosing certain documents and a letter dated March 03, 2006 that is said to have been written by Harren to her. 

Based on this, the prosecution moved an application under section 311 CrPC to examine Asha Panicker for marking the documents received by her from Sen as evidence.

However, Justice PN Prakash on holding that this court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court warranting interference, said “The said documents, even if marked through Asha Panicker, will not have any evidentiary value, because, Asha Panciker had merely received those documents and is not the author of the same.” 

“That apart, the fact in the case is, as to whether the car in question was a used car in Dubai or was it a brand new one that was imported in violation of Transfer of Residence Scheme. The issue is not payment of differential duty. The fact that differential duty has been paid has been accepted by both sides and that is the reason why immunity from prosecution was given to Sushmita Sen and she was not made an accused in the case”, the judge added.