2006 (5) TMI 433 - Commission - Customs

Issues: Settlement application for duty evasion involving misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported car; Maintainability of application based on the period of 180 days from the date of seizure; Disclosure of crucial information about co-noticee; Imposition of duty, fine, and penalty; Release of the car to the applicant; Safeguarding revenue interest against co-noticees; Settlement terms and conditions; Immunities and consequences of false evidence.

Issue 1: Settlement application for duty evasion involving misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported car
The case involved an application for settlement concerning a Show Cause Notice issued for duty evasion amounting to Rs. 8,44,291/- related to the import of a Toyota car. The applicant was found to have misused Transfer of Residence claim to evade customs duty by misdeclaring the model and value of the car based on forged invoices. The applicant admitted to lending his name and passport details for a fee without paying for the car, leading to proposed confiscation and penalties on the applicant and other co-noticees. The main noticee sought settlement, while co-noticees did not come forward, raising concerns about evasion attempts and revenue loss.

Issue 2: Maintainability of application based on the period of 180 days from the date of seizure
The dispute arose regarding the application's timeliness based on the 180-day period from the date of seizure as required by the Customs Act. The applicant argued that the detention date should be considered as the effective seizure date, emphasizing completed investigations and the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Revenue objected, citing non-disclosure of vital information about a co-noticee and potential risks to revenue interests. The Bench ruled in favor of the applicant, counting the 180 days from the detention date, allowing the case to proceed for settlement despite objections.

Issue 3: Disclosure of crucial information about co-noticee
The Revenue contended that the applicant failed to disclose essential details about a co-noticee, affecting the application's admission. However, since investigations were finalized, and the Show Cause Notice served, the Bench found the objection invalid, especially considering the applicant's willingness to pay the full duty amount. The settlement aimed to recover the duty, impose fines and penalties to deter future duty evasion attempts, safeguarding revenue interests without proposing interest charges in this instance.

Issue 4: Imposition of duty, fine, and penalty; Release of the car to the applicant
The Bench allowed the main applicant's settlement application, settling the duty liability at Rs. 8,44,291/- as per the Show Cause Notice. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 2,80,000/- was imposed in lieu of car confiscation, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was levied. Upon payment of duty, fine, and penalty, the car was to be released to the applicant, ensuring compliance with settlement terms while addressing revenue concerns and deterring future duty evasion practices.

Issue 5: Safeguarding revenue interest against co-noticees; Settlement terms and conditions
The settlement decision did not absolve co-noticees of potential departmental actions, ensuring that the settlement was specific to the main applicant. Immunities granted under the Customs Act were contingent on truthful disclosures, with any false evidence rendering the settlement void. The terms and conditions of settlement were outlined, emphasizing compliance, consequences of non-compliance, and the necessity of full disclosure to maintain the settlement's validity and immunities granted.

← Previous Next →