1991 (3) TMI 140 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority to order re-assay of seized goods after completion of evidence in adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner's house was searched, and certain diamonds were seized, assayed, and valued by experts on the same day. The petitioner retracted his statement the next day. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner provided replies, evidence, and submissions. The petitioner contended that the evidence and expert opinion supported his case, and any further assessment would be prejudicial. The second respondent proposed re-assaying the diamonds, which the petitioner objected to, citing lack of jurisdiction and prejudice due to already presented evidence.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Customs Act provisions related to search, seizure, and adjudication do not allow for re-investigation after evidence collection. The petitioner's defense was based on documents proving the legitimacy of the diamonds, purchased from Bombay. The counsel contended that re-assaying the goods was an attempt to manipulate their value and undermine the evidence already submitted. Lack of reasons for re-assaying and failure to challenge the initial expert opinion were highlighted as additional concerns.

The respondents' counsel argued that the adjudicating authority had the discretion to gather more information to substantiate the charges, despite acknowledging the absence of reasons for re-assaying. The Court noted that while re-assaying the goods might seem harmless on the surface, it could potentially nullify the evidence presented and prejudice the petitioner. The lack of justification for re-assaying and the risk of altering the value of the goods were emphasized in the judgment.

The Court concluded that allowing re-assaying after the completion of evidence would be improper and prejudicial to the petitioner. It was determined that the adjudicating authority should not act as a prosecutor by directing fresh evidence collection, especially when evidence had already been presented. The judgment quashed the notice for re-assaying the goods, citing potential prejudice and improper manipulation of the case against the petitioner.