9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that at the time of filing of the Settlement Application, the applicant had admitted the customs duty liability of ₹ 38,90,988/- in respect of imports made under the EPCG license. It is clear that this Commission cannot settle the case for less duty than the duty admitted at the time of filing of the application and the argument for lesser liability is therefore superfluous even otherwise. However, there appears to be no mala fide intent to conceal the facts or evasion of duty and the applicant has cooperated fully during the proceedings. Immunities granted to the applicant u/s 127H(1) of the Act - application disposed off. - Application Nos. 5228-5229/2016 and 5266-5267/2016 - Final Order Nos. F-3132-35/CUS/2017-SC(PB) - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zero Duty EPCG authorization on 11-4-2011 with declaration in Form ANF 5A and declared that they had not availed and would not avail the benefit of SHIS under Para 3.16 of FTP in that current year. The authorization No. 3330001999, dated 13-4-2011 was issued to the applicant for amount ₹ 40,87,865/-. Out of which ₹ 38,90,988/- were utilized against the Bills of Entry No. 3282325, dated 21-4-2011, 3657911, dated 31-5-2011 and 4154344, dated 23-7-2011. 4. The applicant also applied for SHIS scrip on 14-2-2012 and obtained SHIS scrip No. 3310021710, dated 16-2-2012 for amount ₹ 30,13,928/-. Out of which ₹ 30,13,528/- were utilized against Bills of Entry No. 165496, dated 26-3-2012, 7732385 dated 22-8-2012, 9343223, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same was issued in February 2012; that they had submitted the same period in the application form ANF 3E, point No. 5(ii); that the duty should be demanded on the goods imported against the SHIS authorization scrip, as the same had been issued later to the Zero Duty EPCG license. But the Department had demanded the duty against the Zero Duty EPCG license only for sole reason that the duty involved in the EPCG license was more. 9. Notice of proceeding was issued on 4-5-2016 and the application was admitted on 18-5-2016. A copy of the application was also forwarded to the revenue, seeking comments on the application. 10. Vide letter F. No. DZU/23/04/Enq-2014/Mohindra, dated 17-6-2016, Assistant Director, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the applicant under Section 127B. . Thus, it is clear that this Commission cannot settle the case for less duty than the duty admitted at the time of filing of the application and the argument for lesser liability is therefore superfluous even otherwise. However, there appears to be no mala fide intent to conceal the facts or evasion of duty and the applicant has cooperated fully during the proceedings. 13. Keeping in view the fact that the goods were imported under export promotion scheme and enjoyed exemption from duty under the said scheme but were seized as the applicant had claimed double benefit, we take a lenient view. 14. In view of the above and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench hereby settles the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the co-applicant in respect of imports made through JNCH Nhava and ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in respect of imports made through ICD Tughlakabad. They are granted immunity from penalty in excess of the above amount. Fine : Bench orders for confiscation of the seized goods (capital goods) total valued at ₹ 1,62,83,785/-, as proposed in the SCN. However, the applicant is given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Prosecution : The Bench grants immunity to the applicant and co-applicant from prosecution under the Act and Rules framed thereunder as applicant insofar as this case is concerned. 15. The abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
