2002 (3) TMI 338 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Eligibility for settlement and immunity under Section 127B and 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Interest and fine liability under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Immunity from prosecution under other Central Acts such as FERA/FEMA.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The applicant firm, engaged in importing electrical items, filed four Bills of Entry for importing compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), PL tubes, and Night Lamps from China. Upon examination, it was found that there was a significant misdeclaration in the quantity of goods imported. The applicant admitted the discrepancy and accepted the differential duty of Rs. 25,18,714/- as demanded.

2. Confiscation and Penalty under the Customs Act, 1962:
A show cause notice dated 9-7-2001 proposed actions including the confiscation of goods seized on 8-3-2001 and 1-6-2001 under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice also invoked the extended period of five years for duty recovery and proposed to confirm/appropriate the duty amount deposited by the applicant.

3. Eligibility for Settlement and Immunity under Section 127B and 127H of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Commission found the applicant eligible for settlement under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they met the eligibility conditions laid down in Section 127B. The applicant made full and true disclosure of their duty liability and cooperated in the proceedings. The Commission granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act and IPC but did not grant immunity under other Central Acts like FERA/FEMA, as no offences under these Acts were made out.

4. Interest and Fine Liability under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Commission noted that the goods were seized after the duty was paid, and therefore, there was hardly any interest liability under Section 28AB. However, given the gross under-declaration and the production of forged Bank documents, the Commission ordered the release of seized goods upon payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs for goods seized on 8-3-2001 and Rs. 3 lakhs for goods seized on 1-6-2001.

5. Immunity from Prosecution under Other Central Acts such as FERA/FEMA:
The applicant's plea for immunity under FERA/FEMA was not granted as no case was made out suggesting offences under these Acts. The Commission emphasized that the immunity granted was only for acts under the Customs Act and IPC.

Conclusion:
The case was settled with the acceptance of the duty liability of Rs. 25,18,714/-, which had already been paid. The applicant was granted immunity from prosecution and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, but not under other Central Acts. The goods were to be released upon payment of the specified fines within 30 days. The settlement would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

← Previous Next →