2005 (5) TMI 496 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Settlement application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Non-cooperative behavior of Revenue during settlement proceedings.
3. Immunity sought by the applicant from fine, penalty, and prosecution.
4. Terms and conditions for settlement under Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act.
5. Observations on the Revenue's conduct and judicial discipline.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a settlement application filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 by an individual regarding the misuse of Transfer of Residence facility for importing a car. The applicant made a true and full disclosure during the proceedings. The Revenue initially resisted accepting the duty payment and bond, leading to delays and additional demands. Eventually, the duty was paid, and the goods were released after the applicant complied with the demands.

2. The judgment highlights the non-cooperative and aggressive attitude of the Revenue during the settlement process. The Commission noted the Revenue's lukewarm interest in resolving disputes through settlement provisions. The judgment referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing judicial discipline, indicating the need for the Revenue to adhere to fair and timely settlement practices.

3. The applicant sought immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution under the Customs Act, as well as under other Central Acts. The Commission granted immunity from fine and penalty under the Customs Act due to the full disclosure and cooperation of the applicant. Immunity from prosecution under other Central Acts was not granted as no Show Cause Notice had been issued under those Acts.

4. The terms and conditions for settlement under Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act were outlined in the judgment. The Customs duty was settled at a specific amount, which the applicant had already paid. Consequently, the Bond and Bank Guarantee were to be released by the Revenue. No interest was levied due to the circumstances of the case, and immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act was granted based on the applicant's cooperation.

5. The judgment concluded by stating that the settlement order would be void if obtained by fraud or misinterpretation of facts. It also reiterated the need for all parties to adhere to judicial discipline and informed all concerned about the decision. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the settlement application, the Revenue's conduct, the immunities granted, and the terms for settlement, emphasizing the importance of fair and cooperative behavior during such proceedings.