TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner was released on bail. Even after a period of six years the respondent has not filed any complaint before the court and due to the same the petitioner suffered a lot. The value sum of Rs. 21,61,150/- was arrived by the respondent based on the price details available from the internet and the same is not an acceptable method of valuation and if the respondent valued the goods properly it would be below 20 lakhs. The Union Ministry of Finance on 23.10.2015 vide circular No.27/2015 communicated the customs officials to drop the criminal proceedings pending against the accused committed offence to the value of Rs. 20 lakhs in case of baggage and outright smuggling cases and Rs. 1 crore in case of appraising cases and commercial frauds. On perusal of the above circular the petitioner is falling under both categories. Hence the proceedings pending against the petitioner deserves to be dropped. Whereas the Learned Special Public Prosecutor stated that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the adjudication orders passed in Order-in-Original dated 17.4.2010 in O.S.No. 05/2010 and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was imposed upon him. Since, he has not preferred any appeal ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings' are independent in character. 7. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent/Prosecution's objection is that the Petitioner had failed to pay penalty levied in the 'adjudication proceedings'. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision in Aggarwal Distributors (P) Ltd., V. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 49 (Tribunal), whereby and whereunder, at paragraph 4, it is observed as follows: "4.We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that department's reliance on the document displayed on the interest is totally misplaced for the reasons advanced by the learned Advocate, as mentioned above, namely:- 1) The document is unsigned. 2) It is not known as to who has introduced the said document on the internet, and 3) What is the nature of price indicated in the said document, whether it is a retail price or a wholesale price. In short, the document displayed on the Internet is not worthy of reliance. It is doubtful whether this document can at all be taken as the computer print out fulfilling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicatory Authority in regard to the aspect of 'Valuation of seized goods', or any other relevant fact. 13. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent projects a plea that if the Petitioner was really aggrieved against the Order-in-Original No.12/2010-ADC(Air) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Chennai, then, there is a remedy for him to prefer Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within the specified time limit. However, the Petitioner had not filed the Appeal in question and therefore, the order in Reference No.12/2010-ADC (Air) dated 17.04.2010 passed by the concerned authority has attained finality in all respects (including the aspect of valuation of the seized goods). 14. The strenuous argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that the Circular No.27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015 does not prescribe a mere mechanical dropping of all proceedings, but merely directs the concerned authorities to review the cases pending for filing of complaint, in the light of the Circular, and take necessary action for preferring of complaint or withdrawal of prosecution. In effect, the categorical stand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mental Authority' is not a Court within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 20. Besides the above, it is to be noted that Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a Bailable one. Section 135 of the Act speaks of 'Evasion of customs duty' and prescribes punishment thereof. An Accused must have knowledge of goods being smuggled goods in order that he may be held guilty under Section 135 of the Act. One of the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 135 of the Act is that an Accused must have acquired possession or carried, deposited, harboured, kept, concealed, sold or purchased or in any other manner dealt with any goods which he knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111, in the considered opinion of this Court. Further, the offence under Section 135 of the Act is a compoundable one in terms of Section 137 (3) of the Customs Act. 21. As far as the present case is concerned, even though on the side of the Respondent/Complainant, at paragraph 5 of the counter, it is observed in candid terms that 'the market value of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner in the instant case (O.S.No.5/2010 INT) was approx....