1990 (8) TMI 142 - SC - Customs

Quashing the penalty imposed - Held that - In the Collector s order, though there was discussion of offence under Section 133 and failure to perform duty under Section 151, the order itself was passed ex facie under the provisions of Section 117 of the Act. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any discussion on this aspect of the matter and there is no indication as to whether this was urged or not before the High Court. Since the learned Additional Solicitor General has emphasised this aspect and we are inclined to agree with him to the extent indicated above, and as the second respondent is not represented before us, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the cases to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving opportunities to the parties for making their submissions on the basis of the evidence already on record; and we order accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector to impose penalty under Sections 133 and 151 of the Customs Act.
2. Applicability of Section 133 and Section 151 in the case.
3. Interpretation of Section 117 for contravention of the Customs Act.
4. Possibility of prosecution, punishment, confiscation, and penalty under different provisions of the Customs Act.

Jurisdiction of the Collector to impose penalty under Sections 133 and 151 of the Customs Act:
The case involved a vessel detained by customs officers where contraband goods disappeared during the interruption caused by the shifting of the vessel. The Collector imposed a penalty on the Deputy Conservator of the port under Section 117 of the Customs Act, which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court quashed the penalty, citing that the Collector did not have jurisdiction under Sections 133 and 151. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not discuss the aspect of the penalty being imposed under Section 117, and remanded the case for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need for clarity on this issue.

Applicability of Section 133 and Section 151 in the case:
The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act related to offences, prosecutions, and penalties. Section 133 of the Act deals with obstruction of customs officers and prescribes penalties for intentional obstruction. The Court considered whether the actions of the Deputy Conservator amounted to intentional obstruction and abetment of smuggling. It was noted that the shifting of the vessel, leading to the disappearance of contraband goods, could potentially constitute intentional obstruction. The Court highlighted the need to establish whether there was abetment of contravention of the Act by the Deputy Conservator.

Interpretation of Section 117 for contravention of the Customs Act:
Section 117 of the Customs Act provides for penalties for contravention of the Act, abetment of contravention, or failure to comply with provisions where no specific penalty is provided. The Court examined the scope of Section 117 and emphasized that penalties not exceeding a certain amount could be imposed for contraventions or failures to comply with the Act. The Court discussed the possibility of prosecution, punishment, confiscation, and penalty under different sections of the Act for the same transaction or occurrence, highlighting the provisions for addressing such scenarios within the legal framework.

Possibility of prosecution, punishment, confiscation, and penalty under different provisions of the Customs Act:
The Supreme Court delved into the provisions of the Customs Act related to confiscation of goods, penalties, and prosecution for offences. It clarified that for the same act or event, there could be prosecution and punishment under Chapter XVI of the Act, along with confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Chapter XIV. The Court emphasized that there would be no double jeopardy if different legal actions were taken for the same transaction or occurrence, provided they were within the framework of the relevant provisions of the Act and other laws. The Court highlighted the need for a comprehensive assessment of the allegations and evidence to determine the appropriate legal actions in the case.