2014 (11) TMI 448 - HC - Customs

Application for quashment of the proceedings - Seizure of gold biscuits - Imposition of personal penalty - Held that - subsequent to the remand, the original adjudicatory authority passed fresh orders in the de novo adjudicatory proceedings, on 16.2.2012. The copy of the said order was also furnished for perusal. It is evident that as per the said order dated 16.2.2012 personal penalty was imposed on both the petitioners. In the said circumstances, it is evident that the very foundation of the above cases has fallen to ground as the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) viz., Annexure-A3 orders are no more in existence. That apart, in the de novo proceedings fresh orders have been passed, whereby the petitioners were imposed with penalty. In the circumstances, the captioned Criminal Miscellaneous cases are liable to fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashment of complaints and proceedings based on Annexure-A3 orders from Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Criminal Miscellaneous cases arising from the same transaction.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Criminal Miscellaneous cases seeking quashment of complaints and proceedings in C.C.No.41/2003 and C.C.No.600/2007 based on Annexure-A3 orders from the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioners argued that since the gold biscuits seized from P. Rasheed were found not illegally imported into India by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), no criminal prosecution should be pursued against them. However, it was highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal later set aside the Commissioner's orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the original adjudicatory authority imposed a personal penalty on the petitioners on 16.2.2012, rendering the foundation of the cases weak as the Annexure-A3 orders ceased to exist. Consequently, the court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous cases, noting that the petitioners' appeal rights before the Appellate Tribunal remain unaffected by this decision.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of considering the evolving nature of legal proceedings, especially when decisions from higher authorities impact the validity of earlier orders. It emphasizes the need for parties to adapt to new developments in adjudication processes and pursue appropriate legal remedies in response to revised outcomes. The court's decision to dismiss the Criminal Miscellaneous cases reflects the principle that legal actions must align with the latest authoritative directives, ensuring fair and just resolution of disputes in accordance with the law.