2001 (9) TMI 400 - Commission - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, duty liability, prosecution, Settlement Commission proceedings, immunity from penalty and fine

Misdeclaration of Goods:
The case involved M/s. Shri Agarwal Trading Co., Jaipur, importing Gallnuts and Almond Kernels, where discrepancies were found between declared and actual contents of containers. Investigations revealed misdeclaration in two consignments, leading to a Show Cause Notice being issued. The importer admitted to discrepancies and misdeclaration during the investigation.

Duty Liability and Settlement Commission Proceedings:
M/s. Shri Agarwal Trading Co. applied to the Settlement Commission, admitting additional duty liability of Rs. 22,06,654. After hearings, the Commission allowed the application under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, adjusting the duty from the sale proceeds of the goods. The Commission ordered the balance amount to be paid and adjusted from the sale proceeds, granting immunity from penalty, fine, and interest under certain conditions.

Prosecution and Immunity:
Prosecution was initiated against Shri Sureshchand Agarwal under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Settlement Commission granted immunity from prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) as requested by the Applicant. However, no immunity was granted under the Customs Act or the Indian Penal Code due to ongoing prosecution proceedings.

Immunity from Penalty and Fine:
The Revenue sought penalties for misdeclaration, but the Commission questioned the imposition of redemption fines since the goods were auctioned. The Commission granted immunity from fines, penalties, and interest under the Customs Act, 1962, considering the full disclosure made by the Applicant and the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
The Settlement Commission ordered the balance duty amount to be paid and adjusted from the sale proceeds, granting immunity from fines, penalties, and interest under the Customs Act, 1962. Immunity from prosecution under FERA was allowed, but not under other relevant laws due to ongoing prosecution proceedings. The Commission emphasized that the granted immunity would be void if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation of facts.