2016 (7) TMI 646 - AT - Customs

Department argued that department proceedings and criminal proceedings are separate and merely because there was acquittal in the latter, it would not entail in nullification of the former. - Held that - the judgments in the criminal proceedings cited supra, will have the effect of neutralizing the order of the lower authority in respect of the two notices (appellants). We have no quarrel with the legal position that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are separate. However in the instant case, the judgments in the criminal proceedings have gone into considerable detail with regard to the actions of the two noticees, their eligibility or otherwise to import the gold and have arrived at a conclusion that the two noticees only are the owners of the gold carried by them in the result the two noticees have been found not guilty of the offences charged against them. Therefore, entire raison d tre of the impugned order will necessarily crumble and becomes redundant. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of gold and foreign currency.
2. Imposition of penalties under the Customs Act.
3. Impact of criminal court acquittals on departmental proceedings.
4. Department's appeal regarding incomplete confiscation of seized gold.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Gold and Foreign Currency:
The officers of the DRI, acting on specific intelligence, conducted searches at the Hyderabad International Airport and found passengers carrying gold without the requisite foreign currency to pay customs duty. They seized 255 FMG bars and foreign currency from SBI officials. The lower authority ordered the confiscation of 9915.25 gms of gold and foreign currency amounting to US $12530 and US $18795, and imposed penalties.

2. Imposition of Penalties under the Customs Act:
Show cause notices were issued to the passengers and SBI officials, proposing confiscation of the gold and foreign currency under the provisions of the Customs Act and FERA, along with penalties. The lower authority confirmed the confiscation and imposed penalties in its order dated 27.02.2004.

3. Impact of Criminal Court Acquittals on Departmental Proceedings:
The noticees appealed against the order, citing their acquittal by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the Hon'ble High Court. The criminal courts found that the noticees had brought sufficient foreign currency to pay customs duty and were wrongly intercepted before they could declare the gold under Section 77 of the Customs Act. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the noticees could have exercised the option under Section 80 to retain the gold with customs and take it back upon leaving India.

The appellate tribunal acknowledged the legal position that departmental and criminal proceedings are separate but concluded that the detailed findings of the criminal courts, which acquitted the noticees, neutralized the lower authority's order. The tribunal referenced similar cases where departmental penalties were set aside following criminal court acquittals, emphasizing that the departmental proceedings could not stand in the face of the criminal court's findings.

4. Department's Appeal Regarding Incomplete Confiscation of Seized Gold:
The department appealed against the lower authority's order for not confiscating the entire 255 bars of gold. However, since the tribunal set aside the impugned order in respect of the noticees based on their acquittal, the department's appeal was deemed unsustainable and dismissed as infructuous.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal set aside the lower authority's order regarding the confiscation and penalties imposed on the noticees, granting them consequential reliefs. The department's appeal was dismissed. The tribunal's decision was influenced significantly by the acquittals in the criminal proceedings, which found the noticees not guilty of the charges under the Customs Act.

← Previous Next →