2007 (4) TMI 567 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Settlement application filed by M/s. Gurukrupa Metal Recycling and co-applicants u/s Show Cause Notice No. DRI/JRU/INV-03/05 dated 10-2-2006 issued by ADG, DRI, Ahmedabad.

Settlement of Duty Liability:
The main applicant was directed to deposit admitted duty liability of Rs. 15,71,155/- within 30 days, which was paid on 20-3-2007. The delay in payment was due to financial hardship as the factory was closed. The applicants requested an extension which was supported by valid reasons.

Allegations and Defense:
The main applicant denied clandestine removal but admitted and paid duty due to the closure of their unit. They argued that the seized currency was not related to the imported goods and requested full immunity from interest, penalty, and prosecution. They emphasized the lack of evidence linking the seized cash to the impugned goods.

Revenue's Position:
Revenue confirmed full duty payment by the main applicant. They argued that the seized cash was linked to the imported goods and opposed granting immunity from interest. Revenue highlighted discrepancies in the explanations provided by the applicants and emphasized the value of the imported goods corresponding to the seized cash.

Bench's Decision:
The Bench observed the lack of tangible evidence linking the seized currency to the impugned goods. Citing legal precedents, the Bench held that suspicion cannot replace proof in cases of currency seizure. The proposal for confiscation of goods not available was deemed unsustainable. The case was settled under Section 127C(7) with terms including settling duty liability, granting immunity from interest, releasing seized currency, dropping the proposal for confiscation of goods, and granting immunities from penalties and prosecution.

Immunities and Conditions:
The settlement included accepting the deposited duty amount, granting immunity from interest exceeding 10% per annum, releasing the seized currency, dropping the proposal for confiscation of imported goods, and granting immunities from penalties and prosecution. These immunities were granted u/s 127H(1) of the Act, subject to compliance with the settlement terms and conditions.

Withdrawal of Immunities:
The order stipulated that immunities would be void if the Bench found any concealment of material particulars, false evidence, fraud, or misrepresentation of facts by the applicants. The attention was drawn to relevant sections of the Act regarding the withdrawal of immunities.