9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticipating in settlement proceedings – Petitioners have not failed to make true and full disclosure of their duty liability in their applications, but have also failed to provide required co-operation to Bench to settle case in true spirit of settlement –Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of case and more particularly, lack of co-operation on part of petitioners for settlement of their case, Commission has rightly held that it was fit case for sending it back to original authority for disposal in accordance with law –Decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos.2837, 3001 and 3030 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 to 1, 2 to 2 and 3 to 3 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan,JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Jayaraj For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas ORDER The petitioners herein have come forward with these writ petitions, seeking to challenge the order, dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Customs, Central Excise Service Tax Settlement Commission, the first respondent herein under Section 127(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ), in and by which, the applications filed by the petitioners seeking immun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lots and 80% of their imports were only stock lot material, seconds and tools made from recycled carbides and a combination of the above factors was attributed to the difference in price between the contract and the actual import price. 5. On an over all consideration of facts, the Commission by its impugned order, dated 29.12.2014, concluded that the petitioners have not only failed to make true and full disclosure of their duty liability in their applications, but have also failed to provide required co-operation to the Bench to settle the case in a true spirit of settlement. Therefore, the Bench, by virtue of powers vested in it in terms of Section 127-I(1) of the Act, 1962 sent the case back to the Commissioner of Customs for adjudication in accordance with provisions of the Act. The Bench had observed that the Commissioner would decided the case as if no application for settlement had been filed by the petitioners. Challenging the same, the respective petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions, to quash the same in so far as they were concerned. 6. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, it has been stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought for adjournment by six weeks. There is no difficulty for the petitioners in appearing on the said date, but their counsel alone had difficulty. However, at the instance of same, the Commission adjourned the case by fixing the date of hearing on 4.12.2014. On 1.12.2014, the petitioner in W.P.No.2837 of 2015 sent a letter that she is not in a position to attend the personal hearing due to personal reasons. The Commissioner, thereafter, again fixed the date of hearing on 9.12.2014 and sent intimation dated 3.12.2014 specifically stating that no further extension would be entertained. But the petitioners sent another letter dated 14.12.2014 stating that she is yet to get documents from DRI and therefore, again sought for adjournment. Therefore, it shows that the petitioners are not interested in settling the issue at an early date as they had not disclosed all the facts and had not come clean before the Commission. When the next hearing was fixed on 19.12.2014, they requested for postponement for the first time on the pretext of non-receipt of un-relied upon documents which were not relied upon by the department for issuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, the Commission dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: 9. Therefore, under above provision, any importer/exporter or any other person may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled. The application has to contain a full and true disclosure of the duty liability of the importer which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, the additionalamount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of mis-classification, under-valuation or inapplicability of an exemption notification or otherwise. The fundamental requirement of an application under Section 127-B is a full true and candid disclosure by the applicant of the liability to pay duty which was not disclosed before the proper officer and of other details to which a reference has been made hereinabove. Significantly, these include particulars of the dutiable goods in respect of which the applicant admits a short levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.11.2014 stating that he is taking treatment for chronic spondilities and sought for adjournment by six weeks. There is no difficulty for the petitioners in appearing on the said date, but their counsel alone had difficulty. However, at the instance of same, the Commission adjourned the case by fixing the date of hearing on 4.12.2014. On 1.12.2014, the petitioner in W.P.No.2837 of 2015 sent a letter that she is not in a position to attend the personal hearing due to personal reasons. The Commissioner, thereafter, again fixed the date of hearing on 9.12.2014 and sent intimation dated 3.12.2014 specifically stating that no further extension would be entertained. But the petitioners sent another letter dated 14.12.2014 stating that she is yet to get documents from DRI and therefore, again sought for adjournment. Therefore, it shows that the petitioners are not interested in settling the issue at an early date as they had not disclosed all the facts and had not come clean before the Commission. When the next hearing was fixed on 19.12.2014, they requested for postponement for the first time on the pretext of non-receipt of un-relied upon documents which were not relied upon by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
