9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of the entire evidence in the case to the effect that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the watches and straps transported by the appellants (accused in the criminal cases) were smuggled goods and by the order of acquittal passed by that Court. 2. Whether it is legally open to the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the goods were of foreign origin liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act, on the same facts, evidence and circumstances and find the applicants guilty under Section 112 of the Act, holding that the criminal court has not considered or legally evaluated the evidence and given a finding with reference to the foreign origin of the watches especially when the judgment of the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manager and Assistant of the appellant Company. The office of the appellant company at Madras was also searched by the Superintendent of Customs on 19-9-1972 and the records were also scrutinised. The two persons, Kumarasamy and Vijayan were again examined. After completion of the investigation, show cause notices were issued to the applicants resulting in the passing of an order of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act against the appellant company and its Director Thiru Rekhi, besides its Madras Branch Manager and its Assistant by the Adjudicating Authority which was latter confirmed by the Central Board of Central Excise and Customs. 3. Apart from this, a prosecution was also instituted by the Assistant Collector of Customs agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the teeth of the categorical finding of acquittal recorded by the competent criminal court, the authorities functioning under the Act cannot come to a different conclusion on the same facts, evidence and circumstances and hold them guilty of an offence under Section 112 of the Act. Learned Counsel also contended that the Department having failed to prove its case before the criminal court cannot make it up by deciding the issue departmentally in their favour. 6. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel reiterated the stand of the Department before the authorities below by adopting those reasoning. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant and of the respondent. We have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unctioning under the Act to embark upon adjudication proceedings. The stand and of proof required as also the nature of evidence and the character of materials that could be relied upon vastly differs in respect of the proceedings between those distinct and different forums. 8. Consequently, we do not find any error whatsoever in the order of the Tribunal repelling the challenge made to the adjudication proceedings on the basis of the acquittal by the criminal Court and that on giving benefit of doubt. Consequently, we answer the questions referred to us in the following manner. The first question has to be answered by holding that the acquittal of the applicants by the criminal court of the charge in the proceedings instituted under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
