Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 85 - HC - CustomsPenalty - misdeclaration of goods - the respondent while posted as Inspector at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi gave a false examination report in respect of Bill of Entry No. 724870 dated 21.12.1998 filed by M/s Intertrade Incorporated, Noida declaring the imported goods to be ‘Plastic Buttons’ valued at ₹ 56,531/- whereas on verification the packet was found to be intact and in its original packing. Goods on examination were found to be cellular phones along with batteries and chargers valued at ₹ 74,80,000/-. whether the respondent once having been acquitted of the charges under the Customs Act, 1962 can then be proceeded against in a departmental enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules on the same cause of action i.e. giving the false examination report allegedly entered by the respondent in respect to Bill of Entry No.724870 dated 21.12.1998 submitted by M/s Intertrade Incorporated, Noida? - Held that: - there is no bar in initiating disciplinary proceedings if the charged officer is acquitted of criminal proceedings arising out of the same cause of action. The result of one proceeding does not have a bearing on the other proceedings. The CESTAT might have found that the respondent did not collude with the importer and hence was not liable of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 but that does not mean that he is not guilty of misconduct, maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty as per Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Whether the non-supply of the original Bill of Entry did in fact violate the principles of natural justice and cause prejudice to the respondent? - Held that: - the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not find any prejudice to have been caused due to the non-supply of the original Bill of Entry. It is well settled law that the technical rules of evidence do not apply to a departmental enquiry and the doctrine of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ has no relevance in a departmental enquiry. All that is needed to establish misconduct is preponderance of probability and some material on record to prove the same. In disciplinary proceedings, a Disciplinary Authority has to see whether after going through the material on record and evidence, a reasonable and prudent man would come to the conclusion that the delinquent officer had indeed committed an act of misconduct. ‘Preponderance of Probability’ is not burdened with the technicalities of the rules of evidence. If after going through the evidence the Disciplinary Authority finds the delinquent officer guilty of misconduct and the delinquent officer is not sufficiently able to rebut this finding, then the order of the Disciplinary Authority would be good in the eyes of law. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority were indeed based on evidence and material. No prejudice was shown because of the non-supply of the original Bill of Entry and circumstantial evidence found against the respondent was not rebutted by him. After applying the test of ‘preponderance of probability’ to the present case we find that the Disciplinary Authority was correct in reaching the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of misconduct - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|