9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 429 - HC - CustomsValidity of summoning order / discharge rejection order - Offence under Sections 132, 135 (1) (a) 135 (1) (b) of Customs Act, 1962 - import of fabrics from China - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - It is admitted that the proceedings has been quashed by the CETSAT, on merit, after considering all material on record. Once the proceeding has been dropped on the similar set of fact, the Apex Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal 2011 (2) TMI 154 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be in abuse of the process of the court. Matter requires consideration - List this case on 7.1.2021 .
Issues:
1. Quashing of summoning order and discharge rejection order under Customs Act, 1962 and IPC. 2. Applicability of previous orders and judgments on ongoing criminal proceedings. Analysis: 1. The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and discharge rejection order dated 25.2.2020 under Sections 132, 135 (1) (a) & 135 (1) (b) of Customs Act, 1962, and Section 420 IPC. The applicants, engaged in import and trading of fabrics, had imported goods from China in 2012 and faced a show cause notice later. The Adjudicating Authority rejected their submissions, but the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (CETSAT) allowed their appeal in 2019. The opposite party appealed to the Supreme Court, which is pending. The applicants argued that since the CETSAT's order was not modified or reversed, no parallel proceedings should be initiated against them. They cited relevant judgments to support their stance. 2. The Court noted that the CETSAT had quashed the proceedings on merit, and there was no interim order against the applicants. The opposite party argued that the CETSAT's order had not attained finality as an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that if a person is exonerated on merits in an adjudication proceeding, continuing criminal prosecution on the same set of facts would be an abuse of the court's process. Citing the Apex Court's recent judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of considering previous orders and the chances of conviction in ongoing criminal trials involving the same facts. The Court directed the opposite parties to file a counter affidavit and stayed the summoning order pending further consideration. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the quashing of orders under the Customs Act and IPC, as well as the applicability of previous orders and judgments on ongoing criminal proceedings.
|
