2016 (5) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Import of baggage - Non declaration of 16 Sony Digital HD Video Camera Recorders made in Japan along with accessories and two Black Magic Cinema Cameras - Confiscation of goods - CCESC reduced the fine and penalty on duty amount already paid - Held that - the present case is not covered by any of the provisos to Section 127B (1) of the Act. In other words, it does not fall under any of the excluded categories of cases. The Court sees no reason why in the circumstances of the present case the Respondent s admission that he had brought dutiable goods into the country while leaving blank the relevant column in the disembarkation card ought not to be considered as an attempt at evading payment of customs duty. By following the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain 2013 (8) TMI 317 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the provisions that confer jurisdiction on the CCESC should not be construed narrowly to exclude such type of cases from the purview of Section 127B. If that was the legislative intent, then there ought to have been a specific provision to that effect. The Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned final order. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final order of Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission (CCESC) regarding duty liability determination, confiscation of goods, penalty waiver, and immunity from prosecution.

Analysis:
The Customs Department challenged a final order by the CCESC regarding duty liability determination, confiscation of goods, penalty waiver, and immunity from prosecution. The Respondent arrived from Singapore with undeclared dutiable goods, including cameras. The Customs Department seized the goods under the Customs Act, and the Respondent admitted to bringing them without proper documentation. A provisional release order was issued, and a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation, duty levy, and penalties was sent. The Respondent then applied to the CCESC under Section 127(5) seeking duty determination, immunity, and waiver of penalties.

The CCESC, in its final order, determined the duty, reduced penalties, and granted immunity to the Respondent. The Customs Department argued that the CCESC should not have entertained the application as per Section 127B since no declaration of dutiable goods was made. The Respondent cited precedents where similar cases were settled by the CCESC. The Court noted that the case did not fall under excluded categories of Section 127B(1) and disagreed with the Karnataka High Court's interpretation. It followed a Delhi High Court decision, emphasizing that the CCESC's jurisdiction should not be narrowly construed. The Court found the Respondent's actions as an attempt to evade duty payment and upheld the CCESC's order.

In conclusion, the Court refused to interfere with the CCESC's final order, emphasizing that the Respondent's admission of bringing dutiable goods without proper declaration should not be excluded from the CCESC's purview. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.