https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90564 Article 20(2) does not bar a criminal prosecution merely because customs authorities previously imposed confiscation or penalty under the Sea Customs Act. The majority treated customs adjudication as a revenue proceeding, not prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal, and regarded the statutory customs process and criminal trial as distinct. The double-jeopardy plea therefore failed, leaving the subsequent criminal prosecution maintainable and the convictions and sentences sustained. The dissent viewed the customs authority as acting judicially when imposing penalty and considered the later prosecution for the same facts constitutionally barred. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2014 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90564 Article 20(2) does not bar a criminal prosecution merely because customs authorities previously imposed confiscation or penalty under the Sea Customs Act. The majority treated customs adjudication as a revenue proceeding, not prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal, and regarded the statutory customs process and criminal trial as distinct. The double-jeopardy plea therefore failed, leaving the subsequent criminal prosecution maintainable and the convictions and sentences sustained. The dissent viewed the customs authority as acting judicially when imposing penalty and considered the later prosecution for the same facts constitutionally barred. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90564