COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. PARMINDER JIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to these appeals by Revenue are, in brief, as under.

(2.) SHRI Nagesh Pathak, learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds mentioned in the Revenue's appeal and pleaded that the respondent officers were on duty on the day when the goods under seizure had landed at Platform No. 2 and had been illicitly cleared without payment of duty to Platform No. 3 and that the goods could not have been removed from Platform No. 2 to Platform No. 3 from the exit gate without knowledge and connivance of the respondents. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner exonerating the respondents is not legal and proper.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. We find that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against all these respondents under CCS(CCA) Rules on the charge of abetting the smuggling activities. However, on completion of the inquiry and on considering the inquiry of such report, the charges against all these respondents have been dropped by the department. While the charges against Shri Sunil Behal, Inspector, Shri Parminder Jit Singh, Inspector, Shri V.S. Sekhon, Inspector, Shri Kewal Singh, Inspector and Shri R.K. Sharma - Inspector (now Superintendent) have been dropped vide order -in -original dated 4 -4 -2006 by the Commissioner, the proceedings against Shri Rajan Choudhary, Assistant Commissioner (now Deputy Commissioner) have been dropped vide memorandum No. C -1401138/98 -Ad. V, dated 17 -6 -2009 of the Government of India. In view of this, when the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents under CCS (CCA) Rules have been dropped, the proceedings for imposition of penalty against them under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 which are based on the same charges and the same evidence, would also not survive. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeals are accordingly dismissed. The Cross Objections No. 91, 108 and 92 of 2007 filed by the respondents also stand disposed of.