9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act in which they were charged under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had exported a consignment of precious stones which was grossly under-valued. This consignment of the precious stones was confiscated under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs department had no case against the petitioners for purposes of adjudication proceedings as has been held by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted on the same facts. 3. Before I deal with this aspect of the matter I find it necessary to take notice of the preliminary objection of the Counsel for the respondents that the petition is not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court. The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of res judicata will only be applicable if the order is on merits as in that event there will be a speaking order in existence. In that view of the matter the objection is over-ruled as the earlier petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Adverting to the point at issue the admitted case of the parties is that the Collector of Customs' ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the departmental authorities themselves disbelieved to be existing, and that in such a situation court will be justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In S.K. Sinha v. S.K. Shingal and another, 1987 (I) Crime 842 following the judgment of Uttam Chand and others v. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, (Supra). I myself held that a decision by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
