Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1985 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (12) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the adjudicating authority who has sanctioned prosecution.
2. Influence of executive decision on adjudicating authority's impartiality.
3. Mutual exclusivity of Sections 122 and 137 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the adjudicating authority who has sanctioned prosecution:
The primary issue was whether the adjudicating authority, having sanctioned prosecution, is competent to adjudicate the case. The Tribunal's impugned order set aside the Additional Collector of Customs' decision on the grounds that the same authority should not adjudicate after sanctioning prosecution due to potential bias, as emphasized by the respondent's plea for natural justice. The Tribunal highlighted that the principles of natural justice necessitate an unbiased adjudicating authority, and the authority who sanctioned prosecution might have prejudged the issue, thus compromising the fairness of the trial.

2. Influence of executive decision on adjudicating authority's impartiality:
The Tribunal examined whether the adjudicating authority's executive decision to sanction prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, disqualified him from adjudicating the case under Section 122. The Tribunal underscored the doctrine of bias and natural justice principles, particularly the maxims "audi alteram partem" (no man shall be condemned unheard) and "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" (no man shall be a judge in his own case). The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's apprehension of bias was reasonable and bona fide, given the language of the sanction order, which indicated the authority had made up its mind about the respondent's guilt. The Tribunal emphasized that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done, thus supporting the need for a different adjudicating authority.

3. Mutual exclusivity of Sections 122 and 137 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal addressed whether Sections 122 and 137 of the Customs Act are mutually exclusive. The learned SDR argued that the Tribunal's decision would render these sections mutually repugnant. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 122(a) deals with adjudication by a Collector of Customs or a Deputy Collector of Customs, and "Collector of Customs" includes an Additional Collector. Therefore, one officer could sanction while another could adjudicate, avoiding any conflict between Sections 122 and 137. The Tribunal suggested that administrative adjustments, such as notifying certain officers as Collectors for sanction purposes, could resolve potential difficulties.

Additional Points:
The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court ruling in Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam, noting that the facts and circumstances differed significantly. The Tribunal also rejected the respondent's plea that the Department's initiation of fresh adjudication proceedings post-Tribunal order nullified their right of reference under Section 130(1) of the Act, affirming that subsequent acts in conformity with the Tribunal's order do not destroy the pre-existing right of reference.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the need for an unbiased adjudicating authority and rejecting the Department's reference application. The Tribunal's decision ensures that adjudication and sanctioning powers are exercised by different authorities to maintain fairness and impartiality in proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates