9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itten request made by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Customs appointed three Officers to examine the goods afresh in order to find out whether the goods were co-related with the documents produced. This was in pursuance to an order dated 12-6-2001 and the Officers were directed to record detailed findings giving the nature and description of the goods and as to whether the particulars tallied with the bills of entry and the reasons to be recorded for any goods not tallying with the bills of entry produced. The said Committee submitted a report on 28-9-2001. 3. The Commissioner, however, in terms of the order dated 27-11-2001 found against the petitioners and directed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order filed a statutory appeal before the CESTAT, which found in favour of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 3-2-2003 [2003 (160) E.L.T. 168 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. A conclusion was reached that the documents did tally with the particulars of the case and there was no justification for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The goods were not released and, thus, the petitioners filed a writ petition being CWP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, learned senior counsel referred to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Sunil Gulati v. R.K. Vohra and other connected cases, 2007 (1) JCC 220. The legal position was succinctly set out by A. K. Sikri, J. on conspectus of various judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with different situations hi such matters. There were four eventualities discussed and the principles culled out from the various judgments were set out as under :- '1. On the same violation alleged against a person, if adjudication proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are permissible, both can be initiated simultaneously. For initiating criminal proceedings, one does not have to wait for the outcome of the proceedings are independent in nature. 2. The findings in the departmental proceedings would not amount to resjudicata and initiation of criminal proceedings in these circumstances can be treated as double jeopardy as they are not in the nature of 'prosecution'. 3. In case adjudication proceedings are decided against a person who is facing prosecution as well and the Tribunal has also upheld the findings of the adjudicators/assessing authority, that would have no bearing on the crimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 (212) E.L.T. 183 (Del.)] where adjudicatory proceedings culminated in orders favouring the accused/assessee and where in exercise of independent powers of prosecution, complaints were lodged. It was pointed out that there was a distinction between saying that two proceedings can be maintained as a matter of law and to say that after suffering an adjudication order on the same facts, the Department or prosecuting agencies ought not to be allowed to proceed and prosecute the assessee having failed to establish the basic facts. 9. It is, thus, the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the present case also are identical to these two cases where though the adjudicating process went in favour of the Department initially, the accused had subsequently succeeded. 10. Learned counsel for the Department, however, strenuously opposed the petition by relying on the same set of judgments to contend that there was no ground for quashing the order of framing charges. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments has to be examined. The present case would fall in the 4th category of Sunil Gulati's case (supra) inasmuch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its case. 15. The matter, in fact, is also not so simple as is made out by learned counsel for the respondents. The Commissioner of Customs brought all the evidence produced before himself and even inspection of goods was carried out by the Committee of Officers appointed at the request of the petitioners. On the conspectus of all the aforesaid material, a finding was reached against the petitioners by the customs authorities. It was held that the report of the Committee lent no support to the contention of the petitioners that the goods seized are covered under the documents produced by them. Thus, the substratum of the finding was that the goods were not found to be the same, which could be relatable to the documents. The CESTAT, however, found to the contrary. A categorical finding was reached that to the extent the particulars existed and could be co-related, the Committee had found the goods to be covered by the documents. It had found the physical appearance, the nature and description of the fabrics to be the same as in the bills of entry and had found the width to tally wherever the width was given in the documents. The finding of the Commissioner was found to be incorr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
