The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adjudication to decide all issues on merits and the independence of adjudication and criminal proceedings.

The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The respondent herein / Assistant Commissioner of Customs has filed a complaint in E.O.C.C.No.280 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O-1), Egmore, Chennai-8 against the revision petitioner herein stating that the first petitioner firm, viz., M/s.Cyclops Groups imported six consignments and cleared the same for home consumption. It is further allegation of the complainant that the accused, in order to avoid Anti Dumping Duty in terms of notification No.147/2003-Cus dated 17.10.2003, mis-declared the consignments of measuring tapes to be of Malaysian origin, whereas the goods are of Chinese origin and originated and exported from China. After completion of investigation, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Bangalore issued a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2006 in respect of the above said consignments answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, Seaport-Import, Chennai.

2. While the case was pending, the accused filed the discharge petition in M.P.No.1819 of 2010, to discharge them from the said criminal proceedings. The said petition has been resisted by the respondent after filing counter statement. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of the accused and on hearing the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, dismissed the said discharge petition.

3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed by the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Bangalore conducted investigation and issued a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2006, in respect of the above said consignments and the same is pending adjudication at the hands of the Commissioner of Customs, Seaport-Import, Chennai. As such, a department appeal is pending and under the circumstances, the complainant has filed a complaint in E.O.C.C.No.280 of 2008, before the learned Magistrate, Egmore, which is a parallel proceeding on the same issue. Further, the said Commissioner of Customs sanction order has been issued for prosecution against the accused before the Court which is not appropriate since the proceedings are pending on his file. On the side of the complainant, four witnesses have been examined and also complainant's side witnesses were closed. As per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no prima-facie case has been made out for the alleged offences under Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act. Further, the main ground raised by the petitioner in the said application is that from the evidence adduced, it is clear that the consignments had been imported and cleared for home consumption which constituted a concluded assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act. Further, such concluded assignments had not been reopened in a manner known to law. In view of the assessment having not been re-opened, the proceedings before the trial Court is not maintainable under law. Further, the learned Magistrate failed to note that the invoice, packing list, certificate of origin and bill of lading filed by the petitioners before the Customs authorities had not been disputed or alleged to be forged. Further, there is no material or evidence let in by the prosecution to disprove the authenticity of these documents. The invoices seized during the course of investigation are only attributable to proforma-invoice, which after sustained negotiations with the overseas supplier had resulted in bringing down the price, based on which the goods have been imported and invoice and other documents obtained, which has been filed before the customs authorities for assessment, examination and clearance of imported goods. Therefore, mis-declaration does not arise in this case. The highly competent counsel further argued that no efforts had been taken even to issue summons to the overseas supplier calling for their explanation. Further, no enquiry or investig