2014 (11) TMI 360 - HC - Customs

Settlement commission rejected the application - full and true disclosure - pendency of case - Seizure of goods - mis-declaration of description and value - on testing, it was found that the fabrics were different composition and GSM than what was declared in the bills of entry - Whether the application contains a full and true disclosure of the manner in which additional duty liability has been derived as required under Section 127B. - Held that - in view of the fact that in response to the notice dated 21.09.2012, while giving explanation, the petitioner did not disclose full facts and the petitioner made a false statement to clause (viii) as specified in the notice dated 21.09.2012 and the petitioner falsely stated that Section 123 is not applicable to the goods imported by the applicant. The fact remains that Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner should have made a full and true disclosure stating that Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked and if it is the case of the petitioner that on account of the interpretation given by the Special Bench of Settlement Commission, the case could be entertained and they should have given the explanation. Settlement Commission was fully justified in rejecting the petitioner s application that too after taking note of the order passed by the Special Bench of the Commission - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission under Customs Act Section 127 C(1) - Mis-declaration of goods leading to seizure - Criteria under Section 127B for settlement application - Applicability of Section 123 of Customs Act/NDPS Act - False statement by petitioner - Special Bench decision on application rejection.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's order rejecting their application under Customs Act Section 127 C(1) due to mis-declaration of goods. The petitioner imported Polyester Fabrics under DFIA licenses, but examination revealed discrepancies, leading to seizure. A show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner applied for settlement, meeting criteria under Section 127B, including Section 123 applicability. The petitioner falsely stated Section 123 did not apply, but the Department argued otherwise, citing statutory prohibitions and misdeclarations. The Settlement Commission found the goods fell under Section 123, rejecting the application.

The petitioner raised two grounds against the order. Firstly, they argued that after the Settlement Commission initially allowed the application, subsequent objections should not lead to rejection. Secondly, they relied on a Special Bench decision stating that mere invocation of Section 123 does not warrant application rejection. However, the court found the petitioner's false statement regarding Section 123 crucial, as the Department's objections were valid post-application allowance. The court noted the Special Bench decision but upheld the rejection based on the false statement and subsequent developments.

The Settlement Commission justified the application rejection after considering the false statement and the Department's objections, in line with the Special Bench decision. The court upheld the Commission's decision, emphasizing the importance of truthful disclosure and compliance with statutory provisions. The rejection was deemed valid, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs. The judgment highlights the significance of accurate disclosures in settlement applications and the consequences of misrepresentation in such proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the complexities involved in challenging settlement application rejections under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to legal requirements during such processes.