9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d extent with a direction to the first respondent to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner on par with other importers who have got the benefit of settlement Commission, without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.9171 to 9173 of 2004 WMP Nos.10707 of 2004 W.P.No.9171 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - M. Dhandapani, J. For the Petitioner : No appearance For the Respondents : Mr. GM. Syed Nurullah Sheriff ORDER Though the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they were taken up together and disposed of by a Common Order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued at ₹ 1.10 crore (Market Value) for which the above said exemption is availed illegally should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (vi) Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them; 15. Further, Shri Loon Karan Kawad, the licence broker and M/s.KMK shipping and clearing Pvt. Ltd, the CHA are hereby required to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Sea port, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 within 30 days of receipt of this notice as to why a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on each of them. b. On receipt of the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner presented the application before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice being in respect of same matter on which the show cause notice has to be read as a whole. If read as a whole, it is clear that a settlement by the main declarant is to operate as full and final settlement in respect of all other persons on whom sho cause notice was issued in respect of the same matter.... 4. The same issue was discussed by this Court in A.M.Ahamed Co., Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 433. The relevant portion reads as under: 26. The second contention of the petitioner is that the importer got the dispute settled in terms of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 with the Settlement Commission. Paragraph 6.2 of the order of the Settlement Commission, relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em of their very livelihood. Once the importer has escaped with a nominal fine on the ground that a true and full disclosure had been made, it would be unfair to impose the extreme penalty upon the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on both grounds. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently the M.P. Is closed. 5. It is an admitted case that the authority under the Customs Act issued Show Cause Notice to the importer as well this licence broker. However,the importers went before the settlement Commission to settle the issue. But, the licence brokers were denied the opportunity before the authority, which is not sustainable in view of the Judgment of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
