2007 (9) TMI 509 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of applications by COFEPOSA absconders.
2. Duty liability.
3. Immunity from interest.
4. Immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Applications by COFEPOSA Absconders:
Issue: Whether applications from COFEPOSA detenues or absconders can be admitted by the Settlement Commission.
Judgment: The Settlement Commission observed that there is no legal bar against admitting applications from COFEPOSA detenues or absconders. The Commission noted that if there is a true disclosure of duty liability and its payment, the case must be admitted regardless of the fraudulent nature of the case. The Revenue's apprehension that settling such cases might allow absconders to quash detention orders was deemed unfounded. The Supreme Court's precedent in Pawan Bhartiya v. Union of India was cited, clarifying that quashing preventive detention orders before execution is not normally permissible. The applications of Sarfaraz Dhanani and Maqsood Yusuf Merchant were admitted, but full immunities were not granted due to their absconder status.

2. Duty Liability:
Issue: Determining the duty liability of the applicants.
Judgment: The applicants admitted a duty liability of Rs. 4,54,822/- for DASDA, which was substituted during transit. They contested the duty liability of Rs. 7,64,224/- for Tobias Acid, claiming relinquishment of title before home clearance. The Commission rejected the relinquishment plea, stating that the goods were under seizure due to fraudulent licenses, making the duty payable. The total duty settled was Rs. 12,19,046/-.

3. Immunity from Interest:
Issue: Whether the applicants are entitled to immunity from interest on delayed duty payments.
Judgment: The Commission acknowledged conflicting judgments from various High Courts regarding the Settlement Commission's power to waive interest. While the Supreme Court had stayed interest in a similar case, the Commission decided to grant partial waiver of interest. Interest at 10% was imposed, excluding the duty component of Rs. 7,64,224/- as the goods were under seizure.

4. Immunity from Fine, Penalty, and Prosecution:
Issue: Whether the applicants should be granted immunity from fines, penalties, and prosecution.
Judgment: The Commission considered the cooperation and payment of duties by the applicants. Full immunity from penalties was not granted to the main offenders, Yusuf Dhanani, Sarfaraz Dhanani, and Maqsood Yusuf Merchant. Penalties were imposed as follows:
- Yusuf Dhanani: Rs. 3 lakhs
- Sarfaraz Dhanani: Rs. 1 lakh
- Shakil Ahmad Fakih: Rs. 1 lakh
- Maqsood Yusuf Merchant: Rs. 50,000/-
Full immunity from penalties was granted to other co-applicants. Immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act was extended to all applicants, subject to conditions for Sarfaraz Dhanani and Maqsood Yusuf Merchant.

Conclusion:
The Settlement Commission admitted the applications of COFEPOSA absconders, determined the duty liability, granted partial immunity from interest, and imposed penalties while granting conditional immunity from prosecution. The order emphasized the importance of full disclosure and cooperation in settlement proceedings.

← Previous Next →