9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods. 2. Undervaluation of imported goods. 3. Continuance of criminal proceedings post departmental adjudication. Summary: Misdeclaration of Imported Goods: The petitioners were accused of misdeclaring Poly Carbonate Sheets (PC Sheets) imported under Open General License, alleging that the goods were made from fresh polymer of high resin instead of degenerated scrap. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued a show cause notice and initiated departmental proceedings and a criminal complaint u/s 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that all necessary documents (Bill of Entry, Invoice, Packing Lists, and Bill of Lading) accurately described the goods as PC Sheets. The CESTAT Tribunal, in its final order dated 4-11-2011, found no misdeclaration, stating that the tariff heading covers all kinds of polycarbonate sheets, and non-mention of sheets being made out of recycled material does not amount to misdeclaration. Undervaluation of Imported Goods: The second allegation was that the declared price of the imported PC Sheets was lower than the international/domestic price of the raw material. The CESTAT Tribunal concluded that the charge of undervaluation was dependent on the misdeclaration charge. Since the misdeclaration was not established, the undervaluation charge also failed. The Tribunal noted that the goods were cleared after proper examination and the value was adjusted to match contemporaneous values, which was not challenged by the department. Continuance of Criminal Proceedings Post Departmental Adjudication: The petitioners argued that continuing the criminal complaint after being exonerated in the departmental adjudication proceedings was a gross abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. held that if a party is exonerated in departmental proceedings on merits, criminal prosecution on the same facts cannot continue. The High Court observed that the departmental adjudication requires a lower quantum of proof (preponderance of probabilities) compared to a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt). Given the exoneration in the departmental proceedings, it was deemed impossible for the department to establish the charges in a criminal trial. Conclusion: The High Court quashed Criminal Complaint No. 25/1/03 and the consequent proceedings against the petitioners, citing abuse of the process of law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Kejriwal's case. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
|
