2019 (5) TMI 1759 - AT - Customs

Illegal import of car - co-noticee to the SCN viz. Shri Rishabh R. Goswami and Shri Ravi S. Bhandari approached the Settlement Commission in settlement application no.3877/2013 dated 27.09.2013 and 4080 dated 22.02.2014 respectively and the said dispute was finally settled - HELD THAT - The facts are more and less similar with respect to the present appellant, who is also the co-noticee. Admittedly, the co-noticee have approached the Settlement Commission and got the dispute settled finally. In this view of the matter, it is held that the dispute also stands settled against the present appellant, who is the co-noticee in the common show cause notice issued - appeal is allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in a show cause notice for alleged irregularities in import.
2. Whether the dispute was settled by the Settlement Commission for co-noticees and its impact on the appellant's case.
3. Applicability of penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal revolved around the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation in a show cause notice dated 8.7.2013 for alleged irregularities in the import of a car. The appellant, along with other co-noticees, was accused of undervaluation and misdeclaration to evade central excise duty. The vehicle in question, a Lexus LS 600 HL, was imported by Shri Ravi S. Bhandari, and the bill of entry was adjudicated by confiscating the vehicle. However, the importer redeemed the vehicle by paying a fine and penalty. Subsequently, the extended period of limitation was invoked, leading to a show cause notice against the co-noticees, including the appellant.

2. The Settlement Commission played a crucial role in resolving the dispute for the co-noticees. Shri Rishabh R. Goswami and Shri Ravi S. Bhandari approached the Settlement Commission, and the dispute was settled through a Final Order. Despite this settlement, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded against the present appellant, alleging involvement in smuggling high-end cars by misdeclaration. The appellant argued that the matter was settled by the Settlement Commission, and therefore, the dispute should be considered settled for all co-noticees, including the appellant.

3. The issue of penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was also addressed in the appeal. The appellant's counsel relied on a Division Bench ruling of the Tribunal, citing a case where penalty proceedings against a co-noticee were considered concluded after the discharge of duty liability and penalty by the main notice within a specific period. The Tribunal held that such proceedings were concluded as per the Customs Act and relevant circulars. In the present case, the Tribunal found the facts similar to the cited case, where the co-noticees settled the dispute with the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order against the co-noticee and granting consequential benefits to the appellant in accordance with the law.