AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that both the orders are pursuant to the show cause notice proposing to impose penalties on the petitioners (and one other noticee) on the same set of facts. The impugned orders impose penalties in respect of the same allegations. The petitioners contend that they cannot be subjected to penalties twice over, in regard to the same alleged offences. The petitioners also rely on the decision of this Court in FNS Agro Foods Ltd. & Ors. v. CC (Preventive) Delhi & Anr.: (2016) 337 ELT 31, whereby this Court held that there cannot be two adjudication orders-in-original in respect of the same goods. 4. The controversy in these petitions, arises in the context of allegations made in the show cause notice dated 22.05.2019. The Revenue alleges that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), acting on specific intelligence, intercepted Sh. Jagdeep Singh [petitioner in WP(C) No. 10390/2022] while he was scheduled to depart by flight no. AI 334 from New Delhi to Bangkok from T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The said petitioner was allegedly carrying foreign currency of a market value Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/001268 equivalent to Rs.1,28,81,650/- wrapped in newspape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illegal export of currency and import of steroids and was also acting as a link between the petitioners. 9. The petitioners responded to the show cause notice by filing separate replies dated 29.08.2019. Sh. Jagdeep Singh claims that he was a college student and was apprehended by the officers of DRI at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi while on his way to board a flight to Bangkok. He claims that his statement was recorded under threat and coercion, which he has subsequently retracted. He claims that no foreign currency was seized from him and he has no connection with the same. He also denied that he had any connection with the seizure of drugs from the premises (no. A-127, 2nd Floor, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi-110015). 10. Sh. Rakesh Godara also denied the allegations. He stated that he used to travel often and used to hand over the keys to the landlady (Mrs. Veena Rani) for safe keeping during his absence. He also claims that he had vacated the premises prior to the date of the search and had nothing to do with the anabolic drugs and injections found during the search operations. 11. Respondent no.1 has passed the common impugned order against the three noticees (petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FOREIGN ORIGIN GOODS A. I pass the following order w.r.t. Mr. Rakesh Godara (Noticee-2) a. I order absolute confiscation of the goods recovered from the rented premises of Sh. Rakesh Godara Noticee-2 viz. Anabolic Steroids of foreign origin as detailed in the Table-2 above, having market value of Rs. 2,48,16,358.9/- under Section 11l(d), Section 111 (1) and Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 b. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 24,80,000/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) on the Noticee-2 under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his acts of omission and commission, as brought out above; B. I pass the following order w.r.t. Mr. Shera (Noticee-1) a. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 24,80,000/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lakh Eigh Thousand only) on the Noticee-1 under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his acts of omission and commission, as brought out above; C. I pass the following order w.r.t. Mr. Shera (Noticee-3) a. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 24,80,000/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) on the Noticee-3 under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(i) of the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fined to the issue pertaining to seizure of currency. 17. According to the Revenue, respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction to pass the order pertaining to seizure of anabolic drugs and injections that were seized from the premises. The said premises fell within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2, therefore, the said authority would have the jurisdiction to decide the same. 18. We accept the contention that the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside as it would be impermissible for two authorities to adjudicate the same set of allegations. However, we are unable to accept that the impugned order dated 28.03.2022, passed by respondent no.2, is also liable to be set aside on the aforesaid ground. 19. It is relevant to note that the show cause notice had clearly called upon the noticees (petitioners and Sh. Shera) to respond to respondent no. 1 and show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed in respect of seized currency and to respond to respondent no.2 to specifically show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed in respect of the seized drugs. This is apparent from the following extract of the show cause notice:- "23.1 Now,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh S/o Late Sh. Jasbeer Singh R/o Ward No. 07, KacchiMameran Road, Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana, is hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037 as to why: i. Penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(i) for his ads of omission and commission, as brought out herein. 24.3 Now, therefore, Sh. Shera (whose real name is yet to be ascertained) is hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037 as to why: i. Penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112(a)(i) and 112(b)(i) for his acts of omission and commission, as brought out herein." 20. It is seen that although there is a single show cause notice, it specifically called upon the petitioners to submit their respective replies in regard to allegations pertaining to seized currency to respondent no.1. and regarding issue of illegal import of anabolic steroids to respondent no.2. 21. In view of the above, we cannot fault the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 only on account ....