9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 703 - AT - CustomsPersonal Penalty u/s 112 and 114AA - Proper officer - Judicial discipline - Protection of action taken u/s 155 - Proceedings against the appellants are barred by the statutory limitations outlined in Section 155 of the Customs Act 1962 - actions of the appellants as officers of customs could be considered as being done in good faith and in pursuance of the Customs Act 1962 thus warranting protection under Section 155 or not - HELD THAT - From the sparseness of judicial precedent as far as application of section 155 of Customs Act 1962 in quasi-judicial action is concerned it would appear that such adjudication proceedings encompassing customs officers is a recent phenomenon and the rarity of resort in the several decades past is a telling measure of either increasing complicity of officials or unrestrained resort by investigation and with both from the same stock is not a good reflection of either. It is of concern that increasing resort may not always be in public interest and negation at appellate stage notwithstanding is as good as continuation of damage commenced against officers as individuals and as common weal to public interest. Customs Act 1962 offers deployment of section 136 and well as section 132 corresponding to the charges here for prosecuting officers of customs but as is evident that would be subject to judicial sieve from the very beginning and neither to be entered into lightly nor retreated from hastily. The law is not an instrument of convenience; flexibility appropriated for invoking jurisdiction from one provision to the exclusion of other is nothing but encroachment unless legitimized by good grace in accepting restrictions implicit in the other. The absence of judicial rulings except the few and of recent vintage is not an indication that the present appellants finding themselves in this predicament are clutching at mere straws unless it can be shown that such proceedings through adjudication are statistically a norm and not deviation. Indeed Learned Special Counsel in response to a direct query was unable to substantiate so - as legislative sanction accorded for instituting appellate remedy through newly minted Tribunal and through the constitutional courts in 1980 did not consider it necessary to exclude the safeguard enacted in 1962. Section 155 of Customs Act 1962 are intended as safeguards and are of no less significance to adjudication proceedings. The original authority with determination of absence of good faith in acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellants has skirted the template of section 155(2) of Customs Act 1962 which lacks that motif. The finding is perverse for not only having invoked a test which is in the preserve of judiciary for acceptance of jurisdiction by evaluation of acts for good faith at the threshold in suits prosecution or other legal proceedings against Central Government officers of the Government or local authorities but also by implicit acceptance of safeguards as extending to adjudications by having ventured upon the test of good faith even while avoiding the facts of the dispute necessary to decide the ingress of limitation - Adjudicating authority and appellate authority may choose not be persuaded by judgements that are distinguishable on facts and law but no lower authority may sit in judgement upon any decision of higher authority for chastising or discrediting. That Revenue chose not to challenge the said decisions rendered those to be final and binding on all lower authorities. As the trigger for limitation is from accrual of such cause which is not only a finding on facts but also would need sifting of the investigation process for location of the trigger. While the former of the stipulations in the second of the safeguard is only a question of fact the argument of Learned Counsel on the manner of reading the conjunction concatenating the two deadlines as not necessary and sufficient has effect of adjudging the latter stipulation. Conclusion - i) The procedural safeguards in Section 155 of the Customs Act 1962 are crucial and must be adhered to before initiating proceedings against customs officers. ii) The absence of compliance with procedural requirements can invalidate proceedings regardless of the merits of the case. iii) The principles of natural justice must be observed throughout adjudication processes. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides protection to government officers for actions done in good faith under the Act. The section stipulates that no proceedings shall commence without prior notice and within a specific time frame. Precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other judicial bodies were considered to interpret the scope of protection and procedural requirements. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict adherence to the statutory procedure as laid out in Section 155. It criticized the lower authorities for not properly considering the statutory protections and procedural safeguards intended by the legislature. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority improperly assessed the appellants' actions without establishing whether they were done in good faith. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not fulfill the procedural requirements of providing prior notice and adhering to the time limitations set out in Section 155(2). This procedural lapse was a significant factor in the Tribunal's decision to remand the case. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory protections of Section 155 to the facts, determining that the appellants were entitled to the procedural safeguards provided by the law. The failure to observe these safeguards invalidated the proceedings against the appellants. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, including the appellants' reliance on judicial precedents that emphasized the irrelevance of good faith for Section 155(2) and the procedural compliance by other authorities in similar cases. The Tribunal found the appellants' arguments more compelling, especially in light of the procedural lapses by the lower authorities. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings against the appellants were not conducted in compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 155, and therefore, the appeals were allowed. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, taking into account the procedural safeguards. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the principle that "where a statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden." Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
|
