R K GOENKA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgement, I propose to dispose of four petitions being CRL.R. 157/ 2002 titled Sh. Subhash Chander Wadhwa v. Neeraj Garg, CRL.R. 271/2002 titled Parvesh Kumar Gujral v. Neeraj Garg, Deepak Kausbal v. Neeraj Garg titled 272/2002 and CRLM(M) 1132/2002 titled R.K. Goenka v. Collector of Customs & Another, as all raise a common question for consideration namely whether the prosecution launched by the department against the petitioners under section 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 can/should continue even after they have been exonerated by the department in adjudication proceedings.

(2.) Briefly narrated the facts leading to petition No. CRLM(M) 1132/2002 are that the petitioner No.1 Mr. R.K. Goenka as proprietor of M/s. Mirah Decore had imported a consignment of decorative paper for laminate in 1987 from Singapore. They had filed yellow bill of entry dated 1.8.87 at ICD New Delhi for clearance of goods i.e. decorative paper for laminate through its agents, M/s Om International New Delhi of which the petitioner No. 2 is the Director. The clearance was sought under REP Import License No. P/L/3149498/C/ZZ/ 02/Q/86/C 11 1 dated 9 1086 The bill of entry was marked to Superintendent (CFS) for examination of goods with the direction to send the goods to the assessing officer The goods were examined at CFS on 19 8 87 and samples were drawn in the presence of CHA and the Importer On 2481987, Assistant Collector (ICD) received information that the goods declared as Decorative paper for Laminates' were not as per declaration He therefore ordered 100% examination of the goods on 25887 in the presence of the importer, CHA, Superintendent (ICD) and Superintendent (CFS) Two cartons containing 10 samples/catalogue books for wall paper were found which had not been mentioned in the wrapper The labels found on the goods clearly indicated that the goods were not decorative paper for laminates but were in fact wall paper The license produced by the importer did not cover importation of wall paper Import of any goods into Indian territory except under and in accordance with a valid import licence under clause 3 of Imports (Control) Order issued under section 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 which prohibitions by virtue of section 3 B ibid are deemed to have been imposed under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 Accordingly, the entire goods were seized under section 110 of the Act under the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act A show cause notice in respect of adjudication proceeding was issued for mis-declaration of value of the goods and importing the goods without licence and adjudication order was passed by the Collector on 20 1288 against which an appeal was preferred to CEGAT Petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 4860/92 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration The matter was reconsidered by a special Bench of the Tribunal which in its order dated 10 5 93 held as under

(3.) In the meantime on 28.4.1988, the Collector of Customs filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Act and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 whereupon the petitioners were ordered to be summoned. That the proceedings are going on a snail's pace is apparent from the fact that even after 14 years the complaint is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence. Then on 12.10.2001 the petitioners filed an application for dropping the proceedings. The said application was rejected by the learned ACMM Sh. V.K. Maheshwari vide detailed order, dated 13.2.2002 mainly on the ground that the finding in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the criminal proceedings and is no bar to the continuance of prosecution. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order as well the complaint.