1987 (6) TMI 47 - HC - Customs

Court upholds penalty for possession of smuggled gold under Customs Act.

The court upheld the Union of India's order under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, restoring a penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed on the petitioner for ... Prosecution - Revision - Suo motu review Issues:1. Challenge to the order passed by the Union of India under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Allegations of possession of smuggled gold leading to penalty imposition.3. Review of appellate order by the first respondent.4. Contentions raised by the petitioner's advocate regarding criminal prosecution and delay in initiating proceedings.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Union of India under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking a review of the appellate Collector of Customs' decision to set aside a personal penalty imposed on the petitioner. The first respondent initiated review proceedings and ultimately annulled the appellate order, restoring the original penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed by the Assistant Collector of Customs in 1975.2. The case involved allegations of possession of smuggled gold by the petitioner, leading to penalty imposition. The Inspector of Customs found gold bars and a gold strip on the petitioner during a search, resulting in proceedings under the Customs Act. The appellate Collector of Customs initially set aside the penalty, which was later reviewed and reinstated by the first respondent.3. The first respondent reviewed the appellate order after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner contested the review, arguing against the restoration of the penalty based on previous criminal proceedings where he was acquitted. The first respondent's decision to annul the appellate order was based on the findings of the Inspector of Customs and the original penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector.4. The petitioner's advocate raised two main contentions. Firstly, he argued that the acquittal in criminal proceedings should prevent the departmental proceedings from pursuing the penalty. However, the court held that criminal and departmental proceedings are independent, citing Section 127 of the Customs Act. Secondly, the advocate contended that the delay in initiating the review proceedings was unreasonable. The court found the timing of the show cause notice to be within a reasonable period after the criminal acquittal, leading to the rejection of both contentions and the dismissal of the petition.