2003 (11) TMI 401 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act to the seized goods.
2. Admissibility of the application for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act.
3. Power of the Settlement Commission to recall or review its own orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act to the Seized Goods:
The Bench considered whether the seized goods, predominantly fabrics, were subject to Section 123 of the Customs Act. The applicant argued that the goods were licitly imported and not smuggled, referencing a High Court judgment to support their claim. However, the Bench noted that the goods in question were notified under Section 123 via Notification No. 204-Cus., dated 20-7-84, which covers "fabrics made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn." The Bench concluded that Section 123 applied to these goods regardless of their licit importation status, emphasizing that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) clearly states that no application can be made for goods to which Section 123 applies.

2. Admissibility of the Application for Settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act:
The applicant's initial application was rejected because the majority of the goods were subject to Section 123. The applicant contended that the seized goods were predominantly cotton fabrics, based on test reports, and thus not covered by Section 123. They requested that the DGCEI be directed to test the seized goods to verify their composition. The Bench reiterated that the third proviso to Section 127B(1) prohibits applications for goods to which Section 123 applies, regardless of whether the goods were licitly imported. The Bench found no merit in the applicant's argument, as the classification of the goods in the Bills of Entry was not disputed.

3. Power of the Settlement Commission to Recall or Review its Own Orders:
The applicant sought to recall the earlier order, arguing that it was rejected at the threshold stage due to disqualification under Section 127B and not on merits. They cited various case laws to support their claim that the Commission could recall its order if an unintentional mistake had crept in. The Bench examined the cited case laws and concluded that a mistake must be obvious and patent, not requiring a long process of reasoning. The Bench found no apparent mistake in the earlier order and noted that the applicant's request was more akin to seeking a review rather than rectifying an error.

The Bench also referenced a Bombay High Court decision, which held that the Settlement Commission has no power to review its own orders. The High Court stated that the power to review must be conferred by law and is not inherent. As no such power is conferred on the Settlement Commission, the Bench concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review its earlier order.

Conclusion:
The Miscellaneous Application was dismissed and rejected under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench found that:
- Section 123 applied to the majority of the goods in question.
- The application for settlement was inadmissible under Section 127B due to the goods being subject to Section 123.
- The Settlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to recall or review its own orders.