https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40469 Customs confiscation proceedings do not attract the constitutional bar of double jeopardy against a later criminal prosecution because they are revenue proceedings and the confiscation order operates in rem. Even so, a final customs adjudication refusing penalty may remain a relevant circumstance in criminal proceedings and may be considered under the Evidence Act. Where no statutory appeal or revision is pursued against the customs order, it attains finality and cannot be collaterally challenged. On that basis, the magistrate's independent assessment that conviction under the Gold Control law was not warranted was treated as a plausible judicial view, so revisional interference was not justified. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 May 2010 15:51:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40469 Customs confiscation proceedings do not attract the constitutional bar of double jeopardy against a later criminal prosecution because they are revenue proceedings and the confiscation order operates in rem. Even so, a final customs adjudication refusing penalty may remain a relevant circumstance in criminal proceedings and may be considered under the Evidence Act. Where no statutory appeal or revision is pursued against the customs order, it attains finality and cannot be collaterally challenged. On that basis, the magistrate's independent assessment that conviction under the Gold Control law was not warranted was treated as a plausible judicial view, so revisional interference was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40469