https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316 Customs penalty and confiscation were examined where the same allegations had already led to the respondent's discharge in connected criminal proceedings. The court noted that both proceedings were founded on identical facts and the same basic material, and that the criminal court had found no prima facie case linking the respondent to the alleged smuggling. In that setting, the argument that departmental action could survive merely because the criminal standard of proof is higher was rejected. The customs penalty was therefore not sustained in the absence of independent material, and the Tribunal's decision in favour of the respondent stood. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316 Customs penalty and confiscation were examined where the same allegations had already led to the respondent's discharge in connected criminal proceedings. The court noted that both proceedings were founded on identical facts and the same basic material, and that the criminal court had found no prima facie case linking the respondent to the alleged smuggling. In that setting, the argument that departmental action could survive merely because the criminal standard of proof is higher was rejected. The customs penalty was therefore not sustained in the absence of independent material, and the Tribunal's decision in favour of the respondent stood. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316