2018 (3) TMI 1719 - Commission - Customs

Maintainability of application before Settlement Commission - Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission - relevant date - Section 127F of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The Bench hold that the exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Commission as per sub-section (2) of Section 127F starts from the date on which the application is allowed to be proceeded with - The application was allowed to be proceeded with on 7-12-2017, still before the commencement of the exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Commission, the case had been adjudicated on 17-11-2017 and adjudication order was despatched on 1-12-2017. Thus, the Bench finds that the case in respect of which the present applications have been made is no longer pending adjudication and does not fall within the meaning of case as defined in clause (b) of Section 127A of Customs Act, 1962. The present application is not maintainable and is set aside.

Summary

Issues: Settlement application under Section 127B of Customs Act, 1962

1. Facts of the Case and Seizure of Goods:
The case involved a settlement application filed by an individual regarding a dispute arising from a Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi. The notice was based on the misdeclaration of goods found during the examination of import parcels, leading to the seizure of items such as Micro SD Cards, SFP Trans Receivers, Steroids, and DVDs.

2. Admission of Duty Liability and Provisional Release of Goods:
The applicant admitted a duty liability of a lesser amount than demanded in the notice, citing errors in the calculation of duty by the Department. They sought a refund of excess Customs duty deposited and had taken provisional release of seized goods subject to certain conditions.

3. Proceedings and Change in Settlement Application:
The Settlement application was allowed to proceed after payment of duties and interest liabilities. However, a subsequent change in the prayer submitted by the applicant led to queries regarding the interest payable, which was a mandatory condition under the Customs Act.

4. Jurisdictional Issues and Adjudication:
The jurisdictional Commissioner highlighted that the applicant had not participated in personal hearings and had intended to settle the case through the Settlement Commission. However, due to discrepancies in communication and non-appearance, the case was adjudicated before the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission came into effect.

5. Decision and Rejection of Settlement Application:
The Settlement Commission, after considering the case records and submissions, held that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission starts when an application is allowed to proceed. Since the case had been adjudicated before the Commission's jurisdiction commenced, the application was deemed not maintainable and was rejected.

In conclusion, the Settlement Commission rejected the application as the case had already been adjudicated before the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction began, rendering the application not maintainable under the Customs Act, 1962.