TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company's Discharge Plea Denied in Customs Violation Case</h1> <h3>VINAY RAI Versus STATE</h3> The accused company's plea for discharge in a case involving customs violations was dismissed by the court. The court emphasized that criminal and ... Prosecution - Criminal Complaint - Quashing of Issues:Dismissal of complaint and discharge sought by the accused under Sections 132 and 135(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.Analysis:The complaint alleged that the accused company was importing components for manufacturing computers at a concessional rate of duties under various notifications. The accused was accused of manipulating the number of items imported, adding items not eligible for concessions, undervaluing invoices, and providing false information. Summoning orders were issued, and the accused challenged them multiple times. The ACMM dismissed the application for discharge, stating that the criminal and adjudication proceedings are distinct, citing precedents that the findings of the adjudicating authority do not bind the criminal court. The petitioner argued that if adjudication proceedings favor the accused, criminal proceedings should cease. The judge referred to various judgments and principles, concluding that criminal proceedings must be determined independently based on their merits.The Appellate Tribunal set aside show-cause notices due to technical grounds, not on merits, allowing the appeal against the adjudication order. The accused claimed that since the Tribunal did not exonerate them on merits, they should be discharged. However, the judge disagreed, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The accused also argued that they were wrongly implicated as they were not a director of the company. The ACMM rejected this plea based on the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Act, indicating involvement in the company's affairs. The judge found disputed questions that needed to be resolved at trial, denying discharge at this stage.The petitioner failed to establish a case for interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the impugned order was not flawed. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the trial court was urged to expedite the proceedings due to their age and the repeated challenges faced.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
