2002 (10) TMI 737 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Settlement of duty liability and interest on excess import of goods under DEEC Scheme.
2. Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission in cases involving default in export obligation under Advance Licence/EPCG Scheme.
3. Interpretation of provisions under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Relevant date for determination of duty of Customs.
5. Immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution for applicants.

Issue 1: Settlement of duty liability and interest on excess import of goods under DEEC Scheme
The judgment pertains to an application filed by a Public Ltd. Company under the DEEC Scheme for import of goods. The company failed to fulfill its export obligation, leading to a demand for duty and interest. The Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed and settled the duty liability at Rs. 20,10,746, inclusive of interest. The Commission adjusted the admitted amount from the Bank Guarantee encashed by the Revenue, granting immunity from fine and penalty due to the applicant's cooperation and full disclosure.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission in cases involving default in export obligation under Advance Licence/EPCG Scheme
The Commission considered the jurisdictional aspect raised by the Revenue regarding cases involving default in export obligations under Advance Licence/EPCG Scheme. Referring to Ministry's Circular and legal precedents, the Commission affirmed that such cases fall within its purview under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commission highlighted the Settlement Commission's authority to entertain cases related to additional disclosure concerning assessment documents.

Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962
The Commission extensively analyzed the provisions of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 in comparison with Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing legal cases and circulars, the Commission emphasized the importance of disclosures related to duty assessed and paid during import clearance. The judgment underscored the significance of duty liability determination based on assessed duty under the bill of entry, irrespective of conditional assessments.

Issue 4: Relevant date for determination of duty of Customs
The judgment referred to legal cases such as D.C.M. v. Union of India and Union of India v. Apar India Ltd. to establish the relevant date for the determination of duty of Customs. It clarified that duty liability arises upon assessment during import clearance, regardless of conditional notifications. The Commission highlighted the legislative intent behind disclosure requirements and the relevance of assessment documents in determining duty liability.

Issue 5: Immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution for applicants
Due to the applicants' cooperation and full disclosure during the proceedings, the Commission granted immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code. The judgment emphasized the importance of applicants' cooperation and genuine disclosure in receiving immunity from punitive actions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various legal issues related to duty settlement, jurisdictional authority, statutory interpretation, relevant dates for duty determination, and granting immunity to applicants based on cooperation and disclosure during the proceedings before the Settlement Commission.