2013 (6) TMI 328 - HC - Customs

Meaning of Case - The Settlement Commission refused to entertain the application and it is such order which has been challenged by way of the present petition. - removing 36 MT Mulberry Raw silk or raw silk from the Falta Special Economic Zone without payment of customs duty - held that - The Settlement Commission found that upon the change in the definition the operative words were pending before an adjudicating authority on the date on which an application ... is made and took the view that since nothing was pending qua the matter as on the date of the settlement application being lodged the Settlement Commission did not have the authority to receive the same. There is no infirmity in the order of the Settlement Commission that calls for any interference in this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental basis as to why the provision is more restricted in its operation. It would defy logic and reason if persons as the present petitioner take a chance to have their matter or claim adjudicated before an authority under the statute and upon failing in such misadventure offer to pay a reduced amount than the amount found due. It is evident that the fundamental basis in restricting the relevant provision is to allow a bona fide person to make a settlement proposal prior to taking a chance to have the claim adjudicated. But upon the claim being adjudicated and merely because the recovery has not been completed a person would not be entitled to offer a lesser amount than what has been adjudicated to be due from him. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of Settlement Commission to receive application for settlement of claim under Section 127A(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Settlement Commission declining to accept the application for settlement of a claim related to the recovery of excess basic customs duty. The petitioner was asked to show cause for removing goods without payment of customs duty in violation of relevant regulations.

2. Choice of Forum:
After adjudication proceedings confirmed the claim, the petitioner opted to approach the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act instead of challenging the order before a statutory forum as recognized in the Act.

3. Interpretation of Section 127A(b):
The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commission misinterpreted the amended Section 127A(b) by failing to recognize the broad scope of the term "any proceeding" in the context of the application for settlement.

4. Definition of "Case" Post-Amendment:
Post the 2007 amendment, the term "case" in the Customs Act was defined to include proceedings under the Act or any other statute for the levy, assessment, and collection of customs duty pending before an adjudicating authority at the time of application under Section 127B.

5. Settlement Commission's Decision:
The Settlement Commission, noting the change in the law, emphasized that the application could only be accepted if a relevant proceeding was pending before an adjudicating authority at the time of application submission. The Commission cited judgments and concluded that the petitioner's proposal could not be entertained at the stage it was presented.

6. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
The Court differentiated a previous decision on an excise matter and a Delhi High Court judgment on a customs matter, highlighting the impact of the amendment on the acceptance stage of settlement proposals.

7. Rationale Behind Restricted Provision:
The judgment elucidated that the amendment restricted the acceptance of settlement proposals post-adjudication to prevent individuals from evading full payment after an unsuccessful adjudication attempt. The provision aimed to allow genuine settlement proposals before formal adjudication.

8. Dismissal of Writ Petition:
The Court found no flaws in the Settlement Commission's order and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner was not entitled to offer a reduced amount post-adjudication.

9. Conclusion:
The writ petition was deemed meritless, and costs were not awarded. The parties were permitted to obtain certified copies of the order upon compliance with formalities.