Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Sh. Jagdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Office of The Commissioner of Customs (Delhi Airport) & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10390 of 2022 & CM APPL. 29970 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 10403 of 2022 & CM APPL. 29997 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr. Shivam Tyagi & Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior SC with Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Mr. Gautam Barnwal & Mr. Nikhilesh, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The same set of alleged offences cannot be adjudicated twice over by two authorities.
Headnote:
Customs Act - Smuggling - Sections 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, and 114 - The court considered the imposition of penalties and confiscation of foreign currency and anabolic steroids under the Customs Act and FEMA. The court found that the same set of alleged offences cannot be adjudicated twice over by two authorities. The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 was set aside as it was without jurisdiction, and the matter was remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made against the petitioners, and all rights and contentions of the parties in regard to those allegations are reserved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged two orders passed by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, which imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of foreign currency and anabolic steroids based on a show cause notice. The petitioners contended that they cannot be subjected to penalties twice over for the same alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 was set aside as it was without jurisdiction, and the matter was remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made against the petitioners, and all rights and contentions of the parties in regard to those allegations are reserved.
Issues: The main issue was whether the same set of alleged offences can be adjudicated twice over by two authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the same set of alleged offences cannot be adjudicated twice over by two authorities. The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 was set aside as it was without jurisdiction, and the matter was remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made against the petitioners, and all rights and contentions of the parties in regard to those allegations are reserved.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioners have filed the present petitions impugning two orders. First, an order dated 14.02.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 (order bearing no. 53/Adj/Jyotiraditya/JC/2022); and second, an order dated 26.03.2022, passed by Respondent No. 2 (order bearing no. DLI/CUS/PREV/AK/JC/491/2021-22).
2. The aforementioned impugned orders were passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 22.05.2019 issued to three persons - the petitioners and one Sh. Shera.
3. The petitioners assail the impugned orders principally on the ground 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 equivalent to Rs.1,28,81,650/- wrapped in newspapers and taped to the bottom and the side walls of a stroller bag. The foreign currency was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter `Customs Act') read with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereafter `FEMA') and a panchnama dated 24.11.2018 was drawn up. The said petitioner's (Sh. Jagdeep Singh's) statement was recorded and he had confessed to carrying the said currency, which was meant to purchase anabolic steroids. He claims that he was approached by a person, who, according to the Revenue, is Sh. Rakesh Godara [petitioner in WP(C) No. 10403/2022]. Sh. Jagdeep Singh is alleged to have stated that Sh. Rakesh Godara had offered him Rs.15,000/- plus air tickets along with lodging and boarding in Thailand to carry the currency and for importing anabolic drugs and medicines.
5. The Revenue claims that on 24.11.2018, it conducted search operations on the premises bearing no. A-127, 2nd Floor, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi-110015 (hereafter `the premises'), based on specific intelligence. It is alleged that the said premises was rented out to Sh. Rakesh Godara [petitioner in WP(C)10403/2022] by the landlady, Mrs. Veena Rani. During the search proceedings, large quantities of anabolic drugs, tablets and injections of foreign origin were found. The same were seized by the DRI officers believing the same to be smuggled goods. According to the Revenue, the market value of the seized drugs and injections was ascertained as Rs.2,48,16,358/-. Further searches were conducted at the residence of the petitioners on 20.03.2019 but nothing incriminating was found.
6. Essentially, the allegations against Sh. Jagdeep Singh [petitioner in WP(C) No. 10390/2022] is that he is involved in the smuggling of foreign currency amounting to Rs.1,28,81,650/-. It is alleged that he has deliberately violated the provisions of the Customs Act read with FEMA; and he was involved in dealing with anabolic steroids without a license issued by the concerned authority.
7. The allegations against Sh. Rakesh Godara [petitioner in WP(C) No.10403/2022] are that he was the mastermind of the illegal acts and had engaged in the export of foreign currency and import of anabolic drugs through Sh. Jagdeep Singh.
8. As stated above, in addition to the petitioners, th
