9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d biscuits weighing 347 grams alongwith US $ 31,552 were recovered. It led to the arrest of the petitioner by the officers of the Customs Deptt. Later on he was produced before the ACMM, New Delhi who remanded him to judicial custody. The petitioner was released on bail on the same day ie. on 21.2.1991. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner u/S 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act'). The petitioner had withdrawn a sum of US $ 31,552 prior to his departure for Delhi via Kathmandu and the petitioner brought the same alongwith him. He produced a certificate of the banker dated 6.2.1991 as well as the withdrawl slip from the bank in support of the above before the customs authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to petitioner. It has thus been prayed that the proceedings instituted against the petitioner pending before Shri K.S. Lohia, ACMM, New Delhi be quashed. The respondent in their reply to the above petition have denied all the above averments. According to them the complaint is very much maintainable. The petitioner was found in possession of gold weighing 374 grams and valued at ₹ 1,34,640/- and US $ 31,552 which he had not declared before the Customs Officeis as required u/S 77 of the Customs Act. The petitioner admitted the recovery and the seizure of the same vide his statement u/S 108. of the Act The finding of the Collector would not affect the criminal proceeding u/S 132 and 135 (1) (a.) of the Act before the learned ACMM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel he did not make the requisite declaration becacse he was not given any declaration form as he came to India from Kathmandu. Hence the prosecution proceedings pending against him u/S 132 and 135(1) (a) of the Customs Act are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed as the petitioner has been completly exonerated of the charge of smuggling by the Collector of Customs and the penalty of ₹ 40,000/- imposed by the Deputy Collector of Customs for violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act has been set aside. I find myself in perfect agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated by the learned Collector of the charge of smuggling vide his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dships observed : In view of the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on the record that Shrimati Janak Rani was a partner of the assessee firm and that the firm was a geniune firm, we do not see how the assessee can be prosecuted for filing false returns. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the prosecution. A similar matter also came up for hearing before Marik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. of this Court in 32(1987) D.L.T. 91, S.K. Sinha vs. S.K. Singhal A decision by the Tribunal in the proper sense of the word therefore, is a decision of a departmental authority drawn on the basis of a set of facts and evicence. The least that can be said is that if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
