2007 (4) TMI 481 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Smuggling Case Appeal

The Tribunal rejected the bias objection raised by the appellant concerning the adjudicating Commissioner's role in sanctioning prosecution, emphasizing ... Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty Issues:1. Bias of the adjudicating Commissioner due to sanctioning of prosecution.2. Competence of the adjudicating Commissioner to pass the impugned Order.3. Merit of the case regarding misdeclaration and attempt to smuggle goods.Bias of the Adjudicating Commissioner:The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding bias, arguing that the adjudicating Commissioner's sanctioning of prosecution indicated a prejudgment of the case. However, the Department countered by explaining that the Commissioner's role in sanctioning prosecution is a statutory duty required by law and does not affect the adjudication process. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, emphasizing the separation of criminal proceedings from adjudication proceedings. It was concluded that the Commissioner's statutory duties do not impede their ability to adjudicate the case fairly, leading to the rejection of the bias objection.Competence of the Adjudicating Commissioner:The Tribunal deliberated on whether the adjudicating Commissioner was competent to pass the impugned Order despite sanctioning prosecution. It was clarified that the Commissioner's responsibilities include both sanctioning prosecution and adjudicating cases related to offending goods. The Tribunal highlighted that these duties are specifically assigned to the jurisdictional Commissioner by law, and no one else has the authority to perform them. Therefore, the objection raised regarding the Commissioner's competence to issue the Order was dismissed.Merit of the Case - Misdeclaration and Smuggling Attempt:After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found the appellant, a partner in an import-export firm, guilty of misdeclaration and attempting to smuggle goods. Despite the appellant's claim of carrying the items as samples for export trade to Bangladesh, it was determined that proper Customs formalities were not followed, and the goods were concealed. However, acknowledging that the Customs Officials prevented the illegal export, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 2.00 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal upheld the decision on the guilt of misdeclaration and smuggling attempt, ultimately rejecting the appeal while adjusting the financial penalties.