2010 (1) TMI 1165 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of contraband goods - misdeclaration - initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed based on the exoneration by CEGAT.
2. Whether the findings in adjudication proceedings affect the criminal prosecution.
3. Applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the rule of estoppel in the context of customs violations.
4. The independence of adjudication and prosecution proceedings under the Customs Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed based on the exoneration by CEGAT:
The petitioner argued for quashing the criminal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act based on his exoneration by CEGAT. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in "Standard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of Enforcement," which held that adjudication and prosecution are independent proceedings. The court emphasized that a finding in favor of the accused in adjudication proceedings does not automatically entitle them to quashing of criminal proceedings. The court stated, "There is nothing in the Act to indicate that a finding in an adjudication is binding on the court in a prosecution under Section 56 of the Act."

2. Whether the findings in adjudication proceedings affect the criminal prosecution:
The court highlighted that the adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution serve different purposes and are independent of each other. The Supreme Court's decision in "Assistant Collector of Customs vs. L.R. Malwani" was cited, which clarified that adjudication before a Collector of Customs is not a "prosecution" and does not constitute a "verdict of acquittal." The court reiterated, "The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it."

3. Applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the rule of estoppel in the context of customs violations:
The court addressed the applicability of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prevents double jeopardy. It was clarified that proceedings before the Collector of Customs are not criminal trials and therefore do not invoke Article 20(2). The court also referred to the rule of estoppel, stating that it does not apply as the adjudication proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal trial. The court noted, "Neither the Adjudicating Officer nor the Tribunal is a 'Court,' and therefore, neither bar of Article 20(2) of the Constitution applies to the prosecution despite the view taken in adjudication proceedings."

4. The independence of adjudication and prosecution proceedings under the Customs Act:
The court emphasized the independence of adjudication and prosecution under the Customs Act. The decision in "P. Jayappan Vs. S.K. Perumal" was referenced, which held that criminal proceedings should be judged independently of adjudication results. The court also noted that the Tribunal's decision does not bind the department, stating, "The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be the view of the department and, therefore, does not bind it."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner could not be quashed solely based on the exoneration by CEGAT. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing that adjudication and prosecution are independent processes, and findings in one do not automatically influence the other. The court stated, "There is no valid ground warranting quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner."

← Previous Next →