2003 (11) TMI 433 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods to evade customs duty, Application for settlement under Section 127B of Customs Act, 1962, Adjudication order subsequent to application filing

In this judgment of the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, the applicant imported carbon steel sheets coated with Aluminium tin Alloy but declared them as "Aluminium Tin Strip" to pay a lower duty rate, resulting in a short levy of Rs. 5,31,815. The Commissioner of Customs issued a Show Cause Notice alleging mis-declaration and duty evasion. The applicant sought settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, admitting a total duty liability of Rs. 16,70,209, including the additional duty liability. Despite an adjudication order issued after the application filing, the Commission allowed the case to proceed under Section 127(C)(1), considering the fulfillment of conditions under Section 127B and the non-est nature of the adjudication order post-application. The applicant's deposited amount was adjusted against the admitted additional duty liability. The Commission assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the case under Section 127(F)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

This judgment primarily deals with the mis-declaration of goods by the applicant to evade customs duty. The applicant imported carbon steel sheets coated with Aluminium tin Alloy but declared them as "Aluminium Tin Strip" to avail a lower duty rate, resulting in a short levy of Rs. 5,31,815. The Commissioner of Customs issued a Show Cause Notice alleging mis-declaration and duty evasion, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the applicant.

The applicant opted for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, acknowledging a total duty liability of Rs. 16,70,209, with an additional duty liability of Rs. 5,31,815. Despite an adjudication order being issued subsequent to the application filing, the Settlement Commission allowed the case to proceed under Section 127(C)(1). The Commission found that the applicant met all the conditions specified under Section 127B, enabling the application to be admitted and considered for settlement.

The key legal aspect addressed in this judgment is the Commission's authority to proceed with the application for settlement despite the issuance of an adjudication order subsequent to the application filing. The Commission invoked Section 127(C)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to allow the case to proceed, emphasizing that the adjudication order post-application filing did not hinder the admission of the application. The Commission highlighted the non-est nature of the adjudication order concerning the definition of a "case" under Section 127A(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, ensuring the applicant's right to seek settlement.

Furthermore, the judgment underscores the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over the case post-order issuance. By assuming exclusive jurisdiction under Section 127(F)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commission empowered itself to exercise customs officers' powers and functions concerning the case. This provision solidified the Commission's authority to handle the matter independently and make decisions regarding the settlement and duty liabilities involved.