9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions, are as follows: 3. The Director of Revenue Intelligence collected information that the petitioners have been resorting to gross under valuation of carbide tips and hollow drill rods imported by them through different ports and thereby they detained two consignments of carbide tips and other two consignments of hollow drill rods for investigation and they conducted search in the premises, viz., offices and residences of the petitioners and seized incriminating documents, laptop, hard disk and other relevant evidence regarding undervaluation and also unaccounted currency notices of Rs. 50 lakhs and the Officers of Tuticorin Customs seized one consignment of carbide tips and hollow drill rods valued at Rs. 1,08,75,425/- which were imported by M/s.SSE vide Bill of Entry 7086043, dated 12.6.2012 on 16.7.2012. After completion of investigation, the petitioners were issued show cause notice dated 13.4.2013. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide order, dated 28.3.2014, assigned the adjudication of the entire show cause notices with the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin. The petitioners have submitted their replies, wherein, while raising several oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a new hypothetical theory that the goods imported by them were of inferior quality, but there is no scientific proof that the cemented carbide could also be inferior in quality. The petitioners have accepted their liability only to the extent of Rs. 2 Crores which is only 11.89% of their actual duty liability of Rs. 16.82 Crores demanded based on documentary evidence. Having the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission to settle the case, it is imperative on the part of the applicant to co-operate and participate in the proceedings to avoid delay in settling the issue. The petitioners approached the settlement commission and filed application on 26.03.2014. After having initial correspondences with the petitioners, the Settlement Commission decided to proceed with the hearing of the Application and issued letter dated 10.04.2014. The Department filed its report and contended that the petitioners have not made true and full disclosure of the facts relating to undervaluation and also the registration of the case by CBI on them and thus, sought for dismissal of the application. The Settlement Commission vide its letter, dated 28.8.2014 asked the petitioners to give their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the petitioners have not only failed to make true and full disclosure of their liability in their applications but also failed to provide the required co-operation to the Bench to settle the case in a true spirit of settlement. There is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case as the Settlement Commission has given several opportunities to the petitioners and the petitioners alone had failed to utilize the same and the Commission has given categorical finding that the petitioners have not made true and full disclosure of the facts and they have not co-operated for settling the case before the Commission. The said finding is supported by valid records which are evident in the impugned order itself. A finding of fact and the decision of the Settlement Commission is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Settlement Commission has followed due process of law. With these averments, the third respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire records. 8. Section 127-Bof the Customs Act, 1962, without proviso, reads as follows: "127-B. Application for settlement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on the documentary evidence. The specific case of the petitioners is that the set of relevant documents recovered from their laptop on 01.02.2012 by the department were not furnished in order to substantiate their case. It is not in dispute that the department had retrieved the data from laptop under mahazar proceedings on 13.01.2012 in the presence of the petitioners and they had vouched each and every document at the time of their retrieval and appended their signatures. It is to be noted that though the petitioners have made application for settlement before the Commission as early as 26.3.2014 and at no point of time, they made any requisition to the department to furnish the above said documents. However, it was only on 14.12.2014, the petitioners sought for furnishing of the documents. By the time, the petitioners were admittedly given sufficient opportunities to come up with true and full disclosure of their liability, however, right from the inception, as could be seen from the record, it appears that the petitioners have been dodging the matter without participating in the settlement proceedings. As seen from the record, it appears that the Settlement Commission vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not registered, however, there is no impediment for the petitioners to bring the said fact to the notice of the Commission after registration of the criminal case during the pendency of the settlement proceedings. As rightly held by the Commission, the petitioners have not failed to make true and full disclosure of their duty liability in their applications, but have also failed to provide the required co-operation to the Bench to settle the case in a true spirit of settlement. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, the lack of co-operation on the part of the petitioners for settlement of their case, the Commission has rightly held that it is a fit case for sending it back to the original authority for disposal in accordance with law. Section 127-I of the Act, the Settlement Commission is empowered to send back the matter to the proper officer where it finds that the applicant is not cooperating with it. Accordingly, the Settlement Commission, by virtue of Section 127-I(1) of the Act, has sent the case back to the Commissioner of Customs for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Act. 12. Having gone through the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
