Mohammed Nadir vs. The Superintendent Of Customs Customs Cornmissionerate

Facts

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution alleged that on June 23, 2021, Accused No. 2 was apprehended with three bags containing Apple iPhone mobile phones, and he stated that Accused No. 3 had instructed him to leave the boxes near the baggage belt. The customs officers seized 20 iPhones from Accused No. 2 and Rs. 4 Lakhs from Accused No. 3. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed on both petitioners, which they paid. The petitioners contended that based on Board's Circular No. 12/2022, prosecution would not be launched as the value of the goods seized was below the revised threshold limit.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. The Court noted that Board's Circular No. 12/2022 clearly mandates a threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- for launching prosecution in cases of unauthorized importation, Transfer of Residence Rules, and smuggling of high-value goods. The Court observed that the value of goods seized from Accused No. 2 was Rs. 25,78,000/-, and from Accused No. 3 was Rs. 4,00,000/-. Since these amounts were below the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold specified in the circular, the Court concluded that there was no possibility of launching prosecution against the petitioners. Consequently, the continuation of proceedings was deemed an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed. The Court directed the quashing of proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in HQPOR No. 35/2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) should be quashed on the ground that prosecution is unlikely to be launched in light of Board's Circular No. 12/2022? The petitioner's argument was that the Superintendent of Customs had issued a show cause notice and adjudicated the matter, resulting in the release of Rs. 4 Lakhs to Accused No. 3 after deducting a penalty. Accused No. 3 sought clarification regarding prosecution, and the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs replied that prosecution would not be launched as per Board's Circular No. 12/2022. Similarly, Accused No. 2 paid the imposed penalty, and upon seeking clarification, was informed that prosecution would not be launched under the said circular. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process. The respondent (CBI) argued that Circular No. 12/2022 revised the prosecution threshold to Rs. 50,00,000/- for unauthorized importation, and the value of goods recovered from the accused exceeded this amount. They contended that there were clear allegations against the accused, necessitating a trial.