Supreme Court dismisses application seeking clarification of order in Customs Act

The Supreme Court of India has recently passed a judgment in a criminal case, where an applicant named Amit Jalan had sought clarification of a previous order from the Court. The case pertained to three criminal prosecutions launched by the Revenue Department against Jalan under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, which were based upon three adjudication proceedings initiated by the department.

Jalan had argued that in all three adjudication proceedings, the issue had been finally decided in his favour by CESTAT, yet the criminal proceedings against him were continuing. He had contended that the judgment dated March 22, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022, was liable to be quashed in light of the law laid down by the Court in the said judgment.

Jalan had also sought permission to file an intervention in the case, seeking clarification that the law declared by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated March 22, 2022, ought not to be restricted to the facts of the case but made applicable to all cases, including those pending against him.

However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 26, 2023, refused Jalan's application for intervention, stating that the application was misconceived. The Court held that while the law declared by it was binding on everybody, an authority/court seized with a particular case was required to test the facts of that case to come to the conclusion that the law declared by the Court was applicable to the facts of the case pending before it.

The Court further held that it had no reason to doubt that the court/authority before whom the proceedings were pending would adjudicate the same on its own merits and follow the law declared by the Supreme Court if the facts of the case so warranted.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed Jalan's application for clarification and refused permission for intervention. The Court held that the law declared by it must be applied to the facts of each individual case, and the court/authority seized with the case must adjudicate the same on its own merits.

Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors.     VS State of West Bengal & Ors.