Customs Act limitation bar does not extend to criminal prosecution under Section 155(2), the High Court held.

Section 155(2) of the Customs Act was held not to bar criminal prosecution as time-barred, because the phrase "no proceedings" in that provision was construed as not including criminal prosecution. The Court distinguished an earlier ruling under Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that it concerned the unamended text, which expressly referred to prosecution, and held that the amended excise provision was not pari materia for importing the same limitation bar into Customs Act proceedings. Authorities taking the contrary view were found inapplicable, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 155(2) of the Customs Act barred the petitioner's criminal prosecution as being time-barred and whether the impugned order dismissing the application required interference.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier decision under Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was rendered on the unamended provision, which then expressly referred to prosecution. In contrast, Section 155(2) of the Customs Act does not contain the word prosecution, and the Court found that the expression no proceedings in that sub-section does not include criminal prosecution. The Court also held that the amended Central Excise provision relied upon by the petitioner was not pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act for the purpose of importing a limitation bar to criminal proceedings. Authorities taking the contrary view were found inapplicable.

Conclusion: Section 155(2) of the Customs Act did not bar the criminal prosecution, and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

---