9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the SCN are pending before the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : 2. The applicant firm is engaged in the import and trading of various electrical items. The applicant imported four consignments of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), PL tubes and Night Lamps from China. They filed four Bills of Entry for these imports, the details of which are as under : Sl. No. Bill of Entry/Date Quantity declared (Nos.) 1. 113661, dt. 3-11-2000 63,737 2. 101040, dt. 25-1-2001 2,00,450 3. 102049, dt. 18-2-2001 1,59,995 4. 102282, dt. 27-2-2001 1,23,000 The goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 102282, dated 27-2-2001 were examined by the Department on 8-3-2001 and on examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration in the quantity of goods imported. It was also further noticed that the applicant had made a misdeclaration of the quantity of goods imported in the earlier three consignments also. The details thereof are as follows : Sl. No. Bill of Entry/Date Quantity declared (Nos.) Qty. as per Bank documents Quantity short declared 1. 113661, dt. 3-11-2000 63,737 1,35,000 71,263 2. 101040, dt. 25-1-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue to explain the position arising out of the examination report of the Bill of Entry dated 18-2-2001 where the goods are claimed to have been examined 100%. 6. Both the parties have complied with the directions given to them in the Admission Order. In the affidavit of Shri Naresh Chopra, the following has been affirmed : (a) that the payment of the imports in question has been made to the exporter through the bank and the details are enclosed as Annexure-I to the Affidavit. (b) that the total amount involved in the transactions is reflected in the invoices presented to the Bank. The invoices presented to the Customs were manipulated only with reference to the quantity. This has been done to increase the per unit value of the goods imported so that the Customs may be in a position to accept the value declared in the Bills of entry and allow the import. Therefore, no other payment over and above the payment made through the Bank was made to the supplier. (c) No misdeclaration has been made in any other Bill of Entry. 7. The applicant also furnished a copy of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. This order is in respect of the bail granted to Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, if any. 12. The Revenue was, however, informed that they are free to make any submissions with regard to the request for grant of immunities within 15 days of the receipt of the Record of Proceedings. The Revenue were also asked to clarify whether the goods seized on 8-3-2001 and 1-6-2001 were provisionally released to the importer/applicant and the Bond/Security obtained for such releases. 13. Both the parties have filed the required documents and submissions as per Paras 11 & 12 above. Revenue have clarified that the goods seized from the importer's premises on 1-6-2001 were handed over for safe custody to the importer and the goods seized on 8-3-2001 have been allowed to be warehoused under Section 49 of the Act. In the submissions made by Revenue under their letter dated 4-3-2002, the Revenue have made the following two submissions : (i) That the full and true disclosure made by the importer before the Settlement Commission does not contain any disclosure which has not been already detected by the Revenue. The importer has been confronted with water tight evidence and the same has been corroborated with records gathered from other sources. Section 127B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or settlement of his case. The definition of the term 'case' under Section 127A(b) refer to any proceeding for levy, assessment and collection of Customs duty which may be pending before a proper officer or the Central Government. In this case the proceedings initiated through the show cause notice dated 9-7-2001 are pending before the proper officer of Customs i.e. the adjudicating authority being the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi. In view of the above, the second contention raised by Revenue also needs to be rejected. 16. We have carefully examined the records of the case and submissions made before us. We find that the applicants have accepted the entire duty liability of Rs. 25,18,714/- and this amount shall be appropriated towards the duty payable as demanded in the show cause notice. We also notice that the applicant have fully co-operated in the proceedings before the Commission and accordingly are eligible for the immunities under Section 127H of the Act. We accordingly grant them immunity from prosecution for an offence relating to this case under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the I.P.C. The applicant are also granted immunity from levy of penalty under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank documents for the clearance of the goods in question. Having regard to these circumstances, we feel that an appropriate fine is called for in this case. Out of the goods seized on 8-3-2001, goods valued at Rs. 17,74,388/- have been imported in excess of the declared quantity involving customs duty of Rs. 11,90,373/-. Similarly the goods seized on 1-6-2001 are valued at Rs. 7,67,838/-. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, we order that the goods seized on 8-3-2001 totally valued at Rs. 36,67,092/- shall be released to the applicant on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. Further in respect of the goods seized on 1-6-2001 totally valued at Rs. 7,67,838/-, the applicant shall pay a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. These payments shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of this order. 19. In view of our findings as above, the case covered by these two applications is ordered to be settled on accepting payment of Rs. 25,18,714/- towards accepted duty liability. This has already been paid as mentioned in the order. The applicant shall also pay a total fine of Rs. 13 lakhs as indicated in the preceding paragraph. On payment of the said amount of fine, the Jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
