Man Faces Allegation Of Evasion Of Customs Duty Regarding Importation Of Jewelry Said To Be “Valued” At $2 Million

By Alric Lindsay

The case of Mahesh Harry Vaswani, who faces allegations of evading duty and evasion of liability by deception, was mentioned in the Summary Court today, July 8, 2026.  The items were reportedly worth millions, however, the case was adjourned to a later date to allow the defence attorney to obtain further client instructions.

Regarding the first charge, it was alleged that, on December 7, 2024, at Owen Roberts International Airport, Cayman Islands, Vaswani directly or indirectly by any misrepresentation, act, omission or device, evaded or attempted to evade payment of the whole or any part of the duty or package tax payable on any goods, namely jewellery.

Concerning the second charge, it was alleged on the same date and place that Vaswani dishonestly secured the remission of the whole or any part of any existing liability to make a payment, namely failing to declare items of jewellery imported into the Cayman Islands thereby avoiding duty.

Discussing the background of the allegation, Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions noted that the case centred around Vaswani coming through Customs & Border Control with “jewelry valued at $2 million.”

The prosecution added:

The defendant now says that the value of the jewelry is considerably less than that.

The defence were in the process of obtaining expert evidence with regard to the value of the items in question.

Having had a detailed, albeit telephone conference with Customs and Border Control, I think that point may be a little academic, based on the way Customs and Border Control deal with items that an individual brings through airport security.

So, for example if the jewelry is valued at $2 million but you only paid $1 million because you got a bargain, it doesn’t actually matter for the purpose of duty that would be available.

It would be $2 million less, a very small percentage depending on whether you are a retailer or not.

The prosecution continued:

The percentage would be at its highest 20% and at its lowest 3%.

So, the argument may ultimately become academic and not something I would say will substantially affect the court’s approach on sentence.

However, today we are limited in the progress that we can make and there will be no objection for an adjournment for whatever duration for defence requests… subject to the court approval in that regard.

Responding to DPP Crown Counsel, the defence attorney noted that she did not have any instructions on this matter and was appearing in court on behalf of a colleague.

She added: “In the absence of clear direction from her, I would be seeking an adjournment.”

After hearing these brief interchanges between the attorneys, the Chief Magistrate said she would look forward to hearing the defence’s position by July 22 after taking client instructions.

Note to readers

Evasion of liability by deception is an offence under section 249(1)(a) of the Penal Code (2024 Revision).  This states:

Evasion of liability by deception, etc.

249. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, by any deception —

(a) dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or any part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether that person’s own liability or another person’s liability;

(b) with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to permit another to do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forego payment; or

(c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment, commits an offence and is liable — (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for one year; or (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for five years.

Evading duty is an offence under section 58 of the Customs and Border Control Act (2024 Revision).  This states:

Evading duty

58. A person who, directly or indirectly by any misrepresentation, act, omission or device, evades or attempts to evade payment of the whole or any part of the duty or package tax payable on any goods or who wrongfully obtains or attempts to obtain drawbacks on the duty or package tax is (except in the absence of guilty knowledge, proof of which is upon such person) commits the offence of evading customs and border control duty.