2007 (4) TMI 156 - HC - Customs

Application to settlement of case, consequential to SCN issued for confiscation of the goods exported, has been rejected by the commission - Settlement Commission has wide jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of application, so present application will also be entertained by commission

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of final order by Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dispute regarding duty liability under DEPB scheme for exported hand tools.
3. Show cause notice issued by Commissioner of Customs for alleged fraudulent activities.
4. Rejection of settlement application by Settlement Commission under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act.
5. Interpretation of 'Case' under Section 127A(b) of the Act for settlement application.
6. Discrepancies in dates related to export of goods and examination reports.
7. Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission to entertain settlement claims.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the final order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, challenging the rejection of the application for settlement under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute arose from the duty liability concerning the export of hand tools under the DEPB scheme, with discrepancies in dates and valuation.

2. The petitioner, engaged in trading hand tools, exported goods under the DEPB scheme, facing a dispute over the valuation cap imposed post-export. Allegations of fraudulent activities led to a show cause notice for confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties. The petitioner availed benefits based on assumed export dates, triggering the legal conflict.

3. The Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause notice alleging fraudulent practices in availing DEPB benefits through manipulated examination reports. The notice accused the petitioner of contravening trade regulations and rendering the export illegal, leading to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act.

4. The Settlement Commission rejected the petitioner's application citing the absence of a demand for customs duty in the show cause notice. The Commission emphasized the definition of 'Case' under Section 127A(b) and the lack of proceedings for levy, assessment, or collection of customs duty in the notice, thus deeming the application inadmissible.

5. The interpretation of 'Case' under Section 127A(b) played a crucial role in determining the admissibility of the settlement application. The Commission's decision hinged on whether the proceedings involved the levy, assessment, or collection of customs duty, which was absent in the show cause notice, leading to the rejection of the application.

6. Discrepancies in dates related to the export process and examination reports were highlighted, with conflicting accounts regarding the arrival and export dates of the goods. The petitioner's claim of following procedures and the initiation of disciplinary actions against involved officers added complexity to the case.

7. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain settlement claims was extensively debated. The petitioner argued for wider jurisdiction based on precedents, emphasizing the Commission's authority to adjudicate on various settlement claims. The Court ultimately sided with the petitioner, setting aside the Commission's order and remanding the matter for further consideration, emphasizing expeditious resolution.