2007 (9) TMI 166 - Commission - Customs

Even if other notice have not sought settlement, though settlement application of co-noticee can t be rejected Applicant even if not the real importer but has admitted the entire amount demanded of him in SCN Hence right of applicant to approach the commission can t be taken away.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the applicant to file a settlement application.
2. Disclosure of duty liability and the manner in which it was incurred.
3. Impact of other noticees not approaching the Settlement Commission.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Settlement Commission upon admission of the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the Applicant to File a Settlement Application:
The applicant, Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, filed a settlement application under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1944, in respect of proceedings initiated under Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. 856(40)/LDH/2005/152 dated 2-2-2007. The Revenue opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant was merely a co-noticee and not the direct beneficiary of customs duty evasion. However, the Bench noted that the SCN charged the applicant with duty, making him eligible under the term "any other person" as defined in Section 127B(1) of the Act. The Bench referred to the Special Bench's order in the case of Yousuff Kasim Sait, which concluded that any person to whom an SCN has been issued charging him with duty can file a settlement application.

2. Disclosure of Duty Liability and the Manner in Which It Was Incurred:
The applicant accepted the customs duty liability of Rs. 1,27,36,821/- and had already deposited the entire amount. The Revenue argued that the applicant did not disclose the manner in which the duty liability was incurred. The Bench, however, found that the applicant's acceptance of the entire duty amount demanded in the SCN fulfilled the requirement of disclosing the manner in which the duty liability was incurred. The Bench emphasized that the manner typically involves explaining the rationale behind the duty amount accepted, which the applicant did by admitting the full duty liability as per the SCN.

3. Impact of Other Noticees Not Approaching the Settlement Commission:
The Revenue contended that the application should not be admitted because the main noticees, Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal and Shri Dharamvir Bansal, had not approached the Settlement Commission. The Bench rejected this argument, stating that the applicant's right to seek settlement cannot be negated by the choice of other noticees not to seek settlement. The Bench also dismissed the concern regarding the unsettled duty of Rs. 7,82,711/- related to the import of 40 MT of PVC Resin, as the applicant was not concerned with this import according to the SCN.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Settlement Commission Upon Admission of the Case:
Upon admitting the case, the Bench acquired exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the power and perform the functions of any officer of Customs or Central Excise under the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to the proceedings in this case, as per sub-section (2) of Section 127F of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The Bench concluded that the applicant met the criteria for admission of his case as laid down in Section 127B of the Act. The application was admitted and allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C(1) of the Act. The Bench emphasized that the applicant's eligibility to seek settlement was not dependent on the actions of other noticees and that the full disclosure of duty liability by the applicant satisfied the legal requirements.

← Previous Next →