Customs prosecution not quashed where departmental findings could not displace prima facie suspicion about the alleged vessel transfer.

A preliminary objection to maintainability of a second revision against an interlocutory order was rejected because the challenge also covered a later CEGAT order arising from the same transaction. The Court then held that departmental findings accepting the alleged transfer of the vessel did not justify quashing a Customs Act prosecution, since the petitioner's own statement and surrounding circumstances created prima facie suspicion about the genuineness of the claimed sale. The complaint was therefore not liable to be quashed, and the criminal trial was directed to continue expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was not maintainable as a second revision against an interlocutory order, and whether the preliminary objection should be rejected in view of the challenge also covering the subsequent CEGAT order. (ii) Whether the complaint and criminal prosecution under the Customs Act should be quashed on the basis of the alleged transfer of the vessel and the CEGAT finding in the departmental proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was not maintainable as a second revision against an interlocutory order, and whether the preliminary objection should be rejected in view of the challenge also covering the subsequent CEGAT order.

Analysis: The objection rested on the contention that the order framing charge was interlocutory and that a further revision would not lie. However, the petition was also directed against the later CEGAT order arising out of the same transaction, and that subsequent development was treated as relevant to the challenge. On that basis, the objection to maintainability was not accepted.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and criminal prosecution under the Customs Act should be quashed on the basis of the alleged transfer of the vessel and the CEGAT finding in the departmental proceedings.

Analysis: The departmental order had proceeded on the basis that the transfer of the vessel and the change in its name were reflected in the customs records before interception, which supported the petitioner's claim in the adjudication matter. But the proceeding before the Court was a criminal prosecution, and the petitioner's own statement recorded under section 107 created strong prima facie suspicion about the genuineness of the alleged transfer. The surrounding circumstances, including the failure to trace the transferee and the inconsistencies in the petitioner's explanation, were held to undermine the plea of bona fide sale. The departmental findings therefore did not warrant quashing of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected, the rule was discharged, and the criminal trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution under the Customs Act will not be quashed merely because departmental adjudication has taken a different view, where the accused's own statement and surrounding circumstances create prima facie suspicion about the defence set up.

---