https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168342 Parallel customs confiscation and penalty proceedings may continue during related criminal prosecution where the statute expressly permits concurrent action. The customs authorities acted within their powers, so the proceedings did not amount to contempt of court and no writ of prohibition was warranted. A refusal to defer the proceedings was not amenable to mandamus absent mala fides or arbitrariness. Article 20(3) was not infringed because the person concerned was not compelled to testify against himself; a mere possibility of giving evidence in defence is not constitutional compulsion. The challenge to the customs proceedings therefore failed. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168342 Parallel customs confiscation and penalty proceedings may continue during related criminal prosecution where the statute expressly permits concurrent action. The customs authorities acted within their powers, so the proceedings did not amount to contempt of court and no writ of prohibition was warranted. A refusal to defer the proceedings was not amenable to mandamus absent mala fides or arbitrariness. Article 20(3) was not infringed because the person concerned was not compelled to testify against himself; a mere possibility of giving evidence in defence is not constitutional compulsion. The challenge to the customs proceedings therefore failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168342