2020 (1) TMI 1315 - HC - Customs

Production of records - quantification of interest - denial of benefit of Notification No. 46/2013-Cus., dated 26-9-2013 - HELD THAT - The Settlement Commission appears to have referred Circular No. 40/2013-Cus., dated 9-10-2013 as per which only in the event of bona fide defaults, the benefit of Notification No. 46/2013-Cus., dated 26-9-2013 read with P.N. No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 can be granted - Though the Petitioner has sent several representations along with a miscellaneous application to recall the impugned final order dated 25-8-2015, the Additional Commissioner attached to the Settlement Commission informed the Petitioner that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner under Section 127(J) of the Customs Act, 1962 is conclusive and cannot be re-opened by the Settlement Commission. Whether such orders are conclusive or inconclusive or final or whether they can be recalled can be decided only by the Settlement Commission. Since no orders have been passed by the Settlement Commission in response to the applications filed by the Petitioner to recall the impugned order, the present Writ Petition can be disposed with a direction to the Settlement Commission to pass appropriate order in the application filed by the Petitioner on 25-8-2015 to recall the impugned order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order denying benefit of Notification No. 46/2013-Cus., recall of order by Settlement Commission, conclusiveness of Settlement Commissioner's order, direction for Settlement Commission to pass appropriate order.

Analysis:
The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Commission denying the benefit of Notification No. 46/2013-Cus., dated 26-9-2013. The Petitioner relied on the provisions of the said notification regarding the payment of interest in cases of default in export obligation. The Settlement Commission referred to Circular No. 40/2013-Cus., which stated that the benefit of the notification could only be granted in cases of bona fide defaults. Despite the Petitioner's efforts to recall the impugned order and multiple representations to the Settlement Commission, no action was taken. The Settlement Commission indicated that the order passed under Section 127(J) of the Customs Act, 1962 was conclusive and not subject to reopening, emphasizing that only the Settlement Commission could decide on the conclusiveness of such orders.

The Court noted that since no orders were issued by the Settlement Commission in response to the Petitioner's applications for recalling the impugned order, it directed the Settlement Commission to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the Petitioner. The Court emphasized that the Settlement Commission should decide on the merits of the case independently without being influenced by any observations made in the writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the mentioned directions, without imposing any costs. The connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of this judgment.