TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, against whom criminal complaints were pending, could insist on staying the customs and gold control adjudication proceedings or refuse to participate in them on the ground that disclosure of their defence would violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Analysis: The adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were held to be independent of the criminal prosecution. Section 127 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as making it clear that confiscation or penalty imposed by customs authorities does not bar punishment under any other law. The Court applied the settled distinction between departmental proceedings and prosecution before a criminal court, and held that the customs authorities were not exercising criminal jurisdiction. Protection against self-incrimination was therefore not available merely because criminal cases were pending, and the petitioners could not demand that the departmental inquiry be postponed. The cited authorities were distinguished on their facts, and the plea that the petitioners were compelled to disclose their defence in violation of Article 20(3) was rejected.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to stay the adjudication proceedings on the ground of Article 20(3), and the challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
