9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 31.03.2014, proposed to amend the description of the goods imported by the petitioner, vide bill of entry dated 28.09.2013, as Abamectin instead of Solid Epoxy Resin and consequently, to declare the clarification adopted by the petitioner and to declare the value of the goods by rejecting the value declared by the petitioner. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission on 11.11.2015, accepting the duty amount of Rs. 38,00,498/- as per the working sheet appended as Annexure-1 and Rs. 4,21,582/- as interest as per the working sheet appended as Annexure-2 and enclosing proof of payment of the aforesaid amounts as per the working sheet appended as Annexure-3. The application was entertained by the Settlement Commission and comments were called for from the Jurisdictional Commissionerate, which were furnished by the second respondent along with letter dated 11.01.2016. 3.The Settlement Commission by order dated 18.08.2016, in exercise of its power conferred under Section 127-I (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, sent the case back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, merely because, the order under challenge has been passed by the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 168 ELT 3 (SC) (ii) M/s.Zeenath International Supplies vs. Commr. Of Customs & others reported in (2014) 304 ELT 491 (Mds) (iii) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries vs. Union of India & others reported in (2007) 216 ELT 495 (Bom) (iv) West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd., vs. Commr. Of Central Excise reported in (2007) 115 ECC 84 (Del). 8.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was directed to address arguments on the preliminary objection and also make his submissions with regard to the prayer for remanding the matter to the Settlement Commission for fresh decision. Thus, the Court did not examine the matter on merits and has heard the parties only with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and if the writ petition is held to be maintainable, should the petitioner be given an opportunity once again before the Settlement Commission. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 13.It is further submitted that if the Settlement Commission is deleted from the array of parties in this writ petition, the writ petition would not be maintainable against the second respondent alone, as he is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 14.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 15.In Kusum Ingots (supra), one of the questions considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court was regarding Forum Conveniens and it was pointed out that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit and in appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of Forum Conveniens. 16.In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (supra), before the Bombay High Court, the challenge was to an order passed in a writ petition holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petition, since the order was passed by the Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of parties, then the writ petition against the second respondent would not be maintainable. As it has been held in the said decision that an order passed by a Tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and when such a remedy is invoked, the Tribunal is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its order and hence, the Tribunal is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the Settlement Commission should not have been impleaded as the first respondent and if the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad is the sole respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable. 20.Thus, the legal principle deducible from the above decisions are while entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinised by the High Court depending upon the facts of each case. 21.Bearing the above legal principle in mind, we have to test the correctness of the impugned order. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records on the file of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r settlement, but the application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to provide the required cooperation to the Settlement Commission to settle the case in a true spirit of settlement. The facts recorded by the Settlement Commission in paragraph 7.4 shows the conduct of the petitioner. It appears that the authorized representative, who was engaged by the petitioner, did not extend full cooperation. That apart, there has been change of the authorized representative. 24.Therefore, I find every justification on the part of the Settlement Commission for having refused to entertain the application. However, one more reason assigned by the Commission in Paragraph 7.8 of the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to make full and true disclosure in the application for settlement. However, this conclusion is not supported by adequate findings. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the application was rejected for non-cooperation. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the revenue would be prejudiced or put to difficulty for appearing before the Settlement Commission at Chennai, especially when the respondents admit that the Chennai Bench of the Settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
