2006 (4) TMI 445 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues: Settlement of duty liability under the Customs Act, 1962 based on forged DEPB Licences and TRAs; Immunity from interest, confiscation, penalty, and prosecution for the applicants and co-applicant.

Analysis:
1. Duty Liability and Settlement: The applicants, manufacturers of air conditioners, imported goods using DEPB Licences and TRAs, which were later found to be forged. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated an investigation, leading to a Show Cause Notice demanding a duty of Rs. 34,77,572. The applicants admitted the duty liability and sought settlement, denying direct involvement in the forgery but acknowledging the importation without genuine documents. The Settlement Commission considered the admission of duty liability and granted settlement based on the applicants' payment of the full amount.

2. Immunity for Applicants: The Settlement Commission granted the applicants full immunity from interest, confiscation, penalty, and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was influenced by the Commission's acknowledgment that the applicants were innocent victims of the forged documents, having purchased them in good faith from the market without direct involvement in the forgery.

3. Co-Applicant's Immunity: The co-applicant, who arranged the forged DEPB Licences, was granted immunity from penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite his involvement in arranging the forged documents, the Commission found no specific evidence implicating him in the forgery itself. The Commission noted that the main perpetrators were identified as other individuals, leading to the decision to grant immunity to the co-applicant.

4. Settlement Terms and Conditions: The settlement terms included fixing the duty liability at Rs. 34,77,572, with no further liability since the applicants had already paid the amount. The settlement also outlined the granted immunities for both the applicants and the co-applicant, specifying full immunity from interest, confiscation, penalty, and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the settlement highlighted that any fraud or misrepresentation of facts could render the settlement void, with attention drawn to the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, settling the duty liability and granting immunities as detailed above, ensuring fairness and justice in resolving the matter.