2013 (9) TMI 663 - HC - Customs

Filing of Baggage Declaration Form - Whether the C & E Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting the petitioner s application for settlement under the Customs Act, 1962 merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a Baggage Declaration Form Held that - Proforma of Baggage Declaration Form as prescribed under Section 81 of the Act had a column for description of goods - Therefore, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the goods were not required to be described in the Baggage Declaration Form, cannot be accepted - In this case, the petitioner had not been able to even establish that the Baggage Declaration Form had at all been filed and if so, by whom and when - Hence, where Baggage Declaration Form was not filed, jurisdiction under Section 127B(1) of the said Act cannot be exercised by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner had not filed any bill of entry so as to satisfy the strict reading of the proviso (a) to Section 127B(1) of the said Act - Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v/s. Manish Kalvadia 2006 (12) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY - the Settlement Commission would have jurisdiction to settle cases, even in case where no bill of entry had been filed for imported goods, if the same had been cleared under a Baggage Declaration Form - Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 127B(1) of the said Act if the Baggage Declaration Form had been filed at the time of the import of goods. However, in this case, it was an admitted position that no Baggage Declaration Form had been filed before the Settlement Commission by the petitioner to evidence its filing at the time of import - In these circumstances, the impugned order held that the petitioner cannot avail of the remedy of Settlement Commission to settle its dispute with the Customs Department in the absence of a Baggage Declaration Form. In fact, the show cause notice does not extend the benefit of exemption Notification on the ground that they were smuggled goods - Nonfiling of Baggage Declaration Form before the Settlement Commission would imply that no Baggage Declaration Form mentioning the said goods has even been filed - Therefore, the goods have been smuggled into India i.e. without having disclosed the same at the time of import - The submission of the petitioner that as the said goods were imported in baggage, it follows that the Baggage Declaration Form has been filed cannot be accepted - It was the case of the revenue in the show cause notice that though the said goods have come as baggage, however, no Baggage Declaration Form has been filed, resulting in the said goods being smuggled into India - The import of goods as baggage does not ipso facto mean that Baggage Declaration Form had been filed by the carrier. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of petitioner's application for settlement under the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-filing of Baggage Declaration Form.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the rejection of the petitioner's application for settlement by the Customs & Excise Settlement Commission under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had sought to settle a dispute regarding the illegal import of goods without payment of customs duty. The Settlement Commission dismissed the application on the basis that the petitioner did not file a Baggage Declaration Form, a condition precedent for entertaining settlement applications under Section 127(B)(1) of the Act. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of this requirement.

The petitioner argued that as the goods were imported as baggage by professional carriers, the filing of a Baggage Declaration Form should not be mandatory to entertain the settlement application. They cited a previous decision where settlement was allowed without the applicant filing the form. However, the respondent contended that the lack of a Baggage Declaration Form was a valid reason for rejecting the application, emphasizing the distinction in factual circumstances from the previous case relied upon by the petitioner.

Upon considering the submissions, the court delved into the statutory provisions under Section 127(B)(1) of the Act. It noted that while no bill of entry was filed by the petitioner, the Settlement Commission had previously allowed settlement in cases where goods were cleared under a Baggage Declaration Form. The court highlighted that the absence of such a form in the present case led to the conclusion that the petitioner could not avail the settlement remedy. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the import of goods as baggage automatically implied the filing of a Baggage Declaration Form, emphasizing the necessity of actual submission of the form as evidence.

Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the Settlement Commission, ruling in favor of the respondents and dismissing the Writ Petition. The judgment reaffirmed the significance of complying with statutory requirements, specifically the filing of a Baggage Declaration Form as a prerequisite for seeking settlement under the Customs Act, 1962.