Subsequent regulatory action on the same transaction fails where the earlier customs penalty was already set aside for no proved contravention.

Subsequent proceedings under the CHA Licensing Regulations could not be sustained on the same transaction after an earlier Customs Act penalty had already been set aside for lack of a specific proved contravention. The later notice and order were based on the very same facts as the first round, and the regulatory action relied on no material independent of those facts. The court therefore held that the two proceedings were not truly distinct, quashed the impugned order, forfeiture and show-cause notice, and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the CHA Licensing Regulations could be sustained on the basis of the same transactions after the earlier penalty under the Customs Act had been set aside.

Analysis: The earlier show-cause notice and the later notice proceeded on the same set of transactions. The appellant had already been proceeded against and penalised in the first round, and that penalty had been set aside on the ground that no specific contravention of the Customs Act had been established. The subsequent action under the Regulations was founded on no material apart from the very same facts, and the later order itself relied on the earlier penalty. In these circumstances, the contention that the two sets of proceedings were wholly distinct was untenable.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Regulations could not be sustained against the appellant on the same transaction after the earlier penalty had been set aside; the answer was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order and the consequent forfeiture and show-cause notice were quashed, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent regulatory action cannot be sustained on the very same transaction where the earlier penalty based on those facts has already been set aside for want of a specific proved contravention.

---