2008 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Central Excise

DRI recovered U.S 4500 and US 15000 from the appellant while he was entering security lounge at IGI Airport - In the absence of proper explanation the amount was confiscated - when appellant authority absolved the petitioner on merit there is no use of continuing the criminal proceedings.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalties by adjudicating authority.
2. Appeals filed by the petitioners before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and subsequent revision petitions under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Contention regarding absolution of liability towards penalties imposed.
4. Initiation of independent criminal prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Legal principles governing simultaneous adjudication and criminal proceedings.
6. Comparison of judgments cited by both parties.
7. Quashing of criminal complaint case against the petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the confiscation of foreign currency and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on the petitioners. The petitioners were intercepted at the airport with undeclared currency, leading to confiscation and penalty imposition. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation due to lack of proper declaration and legal acquisition of the currency.

2. Following the adjudicating authority's decision, the petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which were subsequently dismissed. The petitioners then filed revision petitions under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order set aside the penalties imposed on the petitioners by the adjudicating authority.

3. The petitioners contended that they were absolved of liability towards the penalties through the order passed by the Joint Secretary, which was accepted by the Government. The petitioners argued that the findings in the adjudication proceedings should impact the criminal prosecution initiated against them under the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The judgment delves into the initiation of independent criminal prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, alongside the adjudication proceedings. The petitioners argued that if absolved in the adjudication proceedings, continuing the criminal prosecution on the same allegations would serve no purpose.

5. Legal principles governing simultaneous adjudication and criminal proceedings are thoroughly discussed. The judgment highlights that findings in adjudication proceedings do not amount to res judicata in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for separate standards of proof in each type of proceeding.

6. A comparison of judgments cited by both parties is presented, showcasing differing views on the relationship between adjudication and criminal proceedings in cases involving similar allegations and exoneration.

7. Ultimately, the judgment quashes the criminal complaint case against the petitioners, citing absolution from penalties in the adjudication proceedings and the lack of purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings based on the same set of allegations. The highest Appellate Authority's absolution on merits further supports the decision to quash the criminal complaint.