2004 (9) TMI 416 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods by the applicant.
2. Hand-carrying commercial goods as personal baggage.
3. Duty liability disclosure and settlement.
4. Immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution.

Undervaluation of imported goods by the applicant:
The judgment revolves around the case where the applicant, a sub-contractor, imported parts of gas turbines by undervaluing them and hand-carrying them as personal baggage. The invoices revealed that the goods were highly undervalued and marked as having "No Commercial Value." The Revenue issued a show cause notice seeking to revalue the goods and demanded the short-paid duty.

Hand-carrying commercial goods as personal baggage:
The applicant, through its employees, hand-carried the goods as personal baggage, which were later cleared at the airport. The applicant claimed that the goods were for replacement under warranty stipulated in their agreement with the original contractor. The applicant argued that it fulfilled its warranty obligations and gained nothing from the transactions.

Duty liability disclosure and settlement:
Following investigations, the applicant admitted to the duty liability and voluntarily paid the full amount demanded in the show cause notice. An application was filed before the Settlement Commission seeking immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution. The Commission found the applicant eligible for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, settling the duty at Rs. 72,31,264.

Immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution:
The Commission granted total immunity from interest, fine, penalty, and prosecution to the applicant under Section 127H of the Customs Act, considering the applicant's full disclosure and cooperation during the proceedings. The judgment emphasized that the settlement would be void if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Settlement Commission addressed the issues of undervaluation, hand-carrying of goods, duty liability disclosure, and immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution. The applicant's case involved importing goods under warranty, leading to a settlement where the duty amount was paid in full, and total immunity was granted from additional charges. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with legal provisions and the consequences of fraudulent practices in seeking settlements.