2008 (11) TMI 141 - HC - Customs

CC&CE has come to the conclusion after investigation that the seized goods were sent out of the airport by the petitioner and the co-passanger who had imported the same without showing proof of payment of customs duty. That finding has now attained finality. Only because the petitioner had paid excess baggage charges on the said goods would not make him either the importer or the owner of the said goods. This is a case where the goods were seized from the possession of the said Co-passenger u/s 123 of Custom Act regarding which no declaration was filed and since two of the requirements of Section 127B were not complied with, the rejection of the petitioner s application for settlement by the Commission could not be faulted

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the petitioner's application for settlement by the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Determination of whether the petitioner was the importer of the goods seized.
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 127B, particularly the filing of a bill of entry and the applicability of Section 123.
4. Validity of the Settlement Commission's findings and the role of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Petitioner's Application for Settlement:
The writ petition challenges the final order dated 17-10-2001 by the Settlement Commission, which rejected the petitioner's application for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, a Singaporean national, contends that the application was wrongly rejected on the grounds that he was not an importer.

2. Determination of Whether the Petitioner was the Importer:
The petitioner declared 7 packages on the baggage declaration form and paid a duty of Rs. 1,19,340/-. However, the DRI seized the goods from the possession of Shri N.B. Dichwalkar, not the petitioner. The goods declared by the petitioner did not match the goods seized by the DRI. The Commission concluded that the petitioner was not the importer, as the seized goods were different from those declared and paid for by the petitioner.

3. Compliance with the Provisions of Section 127B:
Section 127B requires the applicant to have filed a bill of entry and the application to be in respect of goods to which Section 123 does not apply. The Commission found that the petitioner did not meet these requirements. The goods seized were not covered by the declaration or bill of entry filed by the petitioner. The seized goods were from the possession of Shri N.B. Dichwalkar, and there was no bill of entry or declaration filed for these goods. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 127B was not complied with.

4. Validity of the Settlement Commission's Findings and the Role of the DRI:
The DRI argued that the goods seized did not correlate with the goods declared by the petitioner. The Commission accepted this contention, noting that the petitioner's declaration did not match the seized goods. The Commission also noted that the petitioner fled to Singapore after the goods were seized, which further supported the DRI's position. The Commission's decision was based on ample evidence, including the show cause notice and the investigation by the DRI.

The petitioner's reliance on the judgments in Tata Teleservices v. Union of India and V.C. Mohan v. Commissioner of Customs was found to be distinguishable. In both cases, the applicants had filed declarations and bills of entry, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Settlement Commission's rejection of the petitioner's application, finding no merit in the petition. The petitioner failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 127B, and the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Commission's decision that the petitioner was not the importer and that the goods seized were not covered by the petitioner's declaration or bill of entry.