CESTAT dismisses customs appeals against officials in bribery case citing insufficient evidence under section 129A

CESTAT Mumbai dismissed appeals by customs authorities against officials accused of accepting illicit gratification for clearing restricted goods. The tribunal found insufficient evidence linking specific officials to alleged payments, noting depositions contained only general allegations without naming respondent officials. The court held that liability for confiscation arose from the nature of imported goods (mixed hydrocarbon oil being high speed diesel) at declaration stage, not from any official misconduct. The adjudicating authority properly disposed of double jeopardy pleas without legal deficiency warranting remand proceedings under section 129A of Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Finalization of Provisional Assessments and Alleged Abetment.
3. Applicability of Section 155 of Customs Act, 1962.
4. Double Jeopardy and Disciplinary Proceedings.

Summary:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962:
The customs officials were accused of abetting the importation of 'high speed diesel' under the guise of 'mixed hydrocarbon oil,' which led to evasion of customs duties. The adjudicating authority found no evidence of intentional abetment or illicit gratification by the officials, thus negating the imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Customs sought to remand the case for reconsideration, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Finalization of Provisional Assessments and Alleged Abetment:
The provisional assessments were finalized based on the importer's declaration and test reports. The adjudicating authority noted that the officials were under work pressure and failed to scrutinize the test reports adequately. However, it was concluded that there was no evidence of mala fide intention or collusion with the importers. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the officials' actions did not amount to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Applicability of Section 155 of Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority found that any action against the officials should have been governed under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not followed in this case. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the protection under Section 155 was not applicable as the proceedings were dropped on merit, not on procedural grounds.

4. Double Jeopardy and Disciplinary Proceedings:
The adjudicating authority acknowledged that disciplinary action had been initiated against the officials under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and held that penalizing them again under the Customs Act would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal concurred, stating that proceedings under different laws for the same act should not lead to multiple punishments. The appeal's contention on this ground was also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to remand the case or modify the adjudicating authority's order. The officials were absolved of the charges, and the penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were not imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence for intentional abetment and illicit gratification, and upheld the protection under Section 155 and the principle of double jeopardy.

---