Mumbai: CBI Court discharges IRS officer in overvalued diamond case, citing lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy | Representational Image
Mumbai: The special CBI court has discharged Chandravanshi Manikanhaiya, Deputy Commissioner Central Board Of Indirect Taxes & Customs (C&CE) and an IRS officer, in a case registered by CBI over the alleged overvaluation of imported rough diamonds. The court stated, “Every procedural lapse cannot be termed as criminal conspiracy.”
According to CBI, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Mumbai had received information that importers M/s Antique Exim Pvt Ltd and M/s Tanman Jewels Pvt Ltd were importing low-quality rough diamonds from Hong Kong at inflated values. Based on this, DRI intercepted 14 consignments and referred the matter to CBI.
CBI claimed, “Manikanhaiya, working as Deputy Commissioner (Import) at Precious Cargo Customs Clearance Centre (PCCCC), Mumbai, entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to cheat the government by attempting to clear overvalued rough diamonds by abusing their official position.”
It claimed that during a July 2, 2018, meeting with commissioner Vinay Brij Singh, Deputy commissioners Manikanhaiya and Jitendra Patel, and assistant commissioner Hawa Singh, concerns about the overvaluation were raised, prompting Manikanhaiya to direct further investigation.
However, the commissioner later “changed the said notesheet and destroyed the same. Further, he changed his direction of further investigation and directed that the assessment be done as per the earlier valuation report.”
In his defence, Manikanhaiya stated that he was on leave from June 22 to June 27, 2018, and was unaware of any valuation reports prepared during that time. He argued that he had no authority to appoint trade expert advisory valuers and that all valuation-related actions occurred in his absence.
Special CBI judge SM Menjoge noted, “It is alleged that the valuation and inspection were done in the chamber of the present applicant, where there was no CCTV. Thus, there was a procedural lapse. However, when the alleged valuation or inspection was done, the applicant was on leave. He has neither signed any document nor torn the notesheet and prepared a fresh one favouring any importer.”
The court concluded, “There is no prima facie material to show that he was a conspirator in this case. Every procedural lapse cannot be termed as criminal conspiracy, especially when this applicant was not present when the valuation was done, as he was on leave for five days. Even a procedural lapse cannot be attributed to him in this situation,” and ordered his discharge.
The court said, “There is no prima facie material to show he was a conspirator. Even a procedural lapse cannot be attributed to him in this situation” and ordered his discharge.
