2000 (6) TMI 64 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Involvement of Customs Officers in fraudulent export activities.
2. Applicability of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Timeliness and validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
4. Evidence and procedural lapses in the adjudication process.

Summary:

1. Involvement of Customs Officers in fraudulent export activities:
The Department's case was based on the fraudulent export activities of M/s. Excalibur Steel, where 152 packages declared as Photocromic Lenses were found to contain rubbish material. The Customs Officers, namely Shri W.L. Hangshing, Shri M.I. Khan, and Shri R.K. Sharma, were alleged to have connived with the exporter to defraud the Government by allowing the clearance of these packages for duty drawback claims. The Department argued that the adjudicating Commissioner failed to consider substantial evidence against the Officers, including their own statements admitting to examining and passing the goods for shipment.

2. Applicability of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Departmental Representative contended that Section 155, which bars suits, prosecutions, or legal proceedings against Government Officers, did not apply to adjudication proceedings under Section 122 of the Customs Act. However, the defense argued that Section 155 provided protection to Customs Officers from such proceedings, citing the Supreme Court decision in Costao Fernandes v. State at the instance of D.S.P., CBI, Bombay, which held that Customs Officers were entitled to protection under Section 155.

3. Timeliness and validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN):
The defense argued that the SCN issued after six years from the detection of the mis-declaration was barred by time under Section 28 of the Customs Act. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Govt. of India v. Citadal Fine Pharmaceutical Co., which held that a reasonable period is built in for issuing SCNs.

4. Evidence and procedural lapses in the adjudication process:
The defense highlighted the lack of documentary evidence, such as the second copy of the shipping bills containing the signatures of the Respondents, to prove their involvement. They also pointed out discrepancies in the dates of verification and the possibility of goods being substituted during the period between submission and seizure.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner dropping the proceedings against the Respondents, citing the protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act. The appeals were rejected on this ground, and the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the other submissions. All three appeals were dismissed.