2023 (2) TMI 953 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - export of foreign currency and import of anabolic drugs - Two adjudication orders-in-original in respect of the same goods - orders are pursuant to the show cause notice proposing to impose penalties on the petitioners (and one other noticee) on the same set of facts - HELD THAT - It is seen that although there is a single show cause notice, it specifically called upon the petitioners to submit their respective replies in regard to allegations pertaining to seized currency to respondent no.1. and regarding issue of illegal import of anabolic steroids to respondent no.2. There are no fault in the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 only on account of that it has been adjudicated on the basis of a single show cause notice dated 22.05.2019. The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of two adjudication orders for the same set of allegations.
2. Jurisdiction of the authorities passing the impugned orders.
3. Validity of penalties imposed based on the same show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Two Adjudication Orders for the Same Set of Allegations:
The petitioners challenged two orders dated 14.02.2022 and 26.03.2022, arguing that both orders were based on the same show cause notice and proposed penalties for the same set of facts. They contended that they could not be penalized twice for the same alleged offenses. The court found merit in this argument, stating that "the same set of alleged offences cannot be adjudicated twice over by two authorities."

2. Jurisdiction of the Authorities Passing the Impugned Orders:
The controversy arose from a show cause notice dated 22.05.2019, which led to the interception of a petitioner carrying foreign currency and the seizure of anabolic drugs from a rented premise. The court noted that the show cause notice was directed to two different authorities for different aspects: Respondent No. 1 for the seized currency and Respondent No. 2 for the seized drugs. The court accepted the contention that Respondent No. 1 exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating on the seizure of anabolic drugs, which fell under the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2. It stated, "Respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction to pass the order pertaining to seizure of anabolic drugs and injections."

3. Validity of Penalties Imposed Based on the Same Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice had called upon the petitioners to respond to different authorities for different issues. The court found that the penalties imposed by Respondent No. 1 were without jurisdiction regarding the possession of anabolic steroids. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 14.02.2022 and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 1 to decide afresh. The court clarified, "the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh."

Conclusion:
The court held that it was impermissible for two authorities to adjudicate the same set of allegations and set aside the order dated 14.02.2022 for lack of jurisdiction. The matter was remanded to Respondent No. 1 for fresh adjudication. The order dated 26.03.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 was not set aside, and the petitioners were given the liberty to file appeals against it within four weeks, which would be considered without the question of delay. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.