9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12-2017. Thus, the Bench finds that the case in respect of which the present applications have been made is no longer pending adjudication and does not fall within the meaning of ‘case’ as defined in clause (b) of Section 127A of Customs Act, 1962. The present application is not maintainable and is set aside. - Application No. 5427/2017 - Final Order No. F-3284/CUS/2018-SC(PB)/R - Dated:- 6-3-2018 - Shri Sanjeev Behari, Chairman and Jayant Misra, Member Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, for the Applicant. Shri Rakesh Kumar, IO, DRI, for the Department. ORDER This order disposes of Settlement application number 5427/2017, dated 5-12-2017 filed by Shri Sudhir Kumar, 67/B, East of Kailash Garhi, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seized vide panchnama dated 27-1-2016. Shri Sudhir Kumar, approached the DRI on 13-4-2016 and claimed owner of the said parcel. 4. During investigation, statement of Shri Sudhir Kumar was recorded on 13-4-2016, wherein, he inter alia, agreed with the contents of panchnama dated 27-1-2016 and stated that invoice price was undervalued and on being shown data in respect of contemporaneous imports, he agreed with the price of ₹ 101.60/-. The applicant vide letter dated 19-4-2016 requested for provisional release of goods which was allowed by the competent authority subject to the payment of applicable Customs duty, furnishing of Bank Guarantee. No information was received from the adjudicating authority whether the goods were provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reason cited by applicant for acceptance of less duty was on account of wrong calculation of duty by the Department on Micro SD Cards as the Basic Customs duty on Micro SD cards was zero and had sought refund of excess Customs duty deposited. The applicant further informed that they had taken provisional release of seized goods on payment of differential Customs duty of ₹ 13,70,227/-, Bank Guarantee for ₹ 11,82,137/- and Bond for ₹ 47,28,546/-. 7. The Settlement application received on 5-12-2017 was allowed to be proceeded with on 7-12-2017 since duties in excess of what was admitted and interest liability was paid by the applicant. 8. The applicant vide letter dated 14-12-2017 informed that there were certain typ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be decided on the basis of available records, both the letters addressed to applicant were returned back with remark of Postal authorities no such person ; that accordingly the case was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. RD/ADC/ACE/89/2017, dated 17-11-2017 and was dispatched on 1-12-2017. 11. The matter was heard on 6-3-2018. Shri Bharat Bhushan, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he has been informed that case has been adjudicated and has no objection if it is sent back. (ii) Shri Rakesh Kumar, IO, DRI, appearing on behalf of Revenue submitted that Settlement Application filed on 5-12-2017 was allowed to be proceeded with on 7-12-2017. Shri Rakesh Kumar informed that accordingly, in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be allowed to be proceeded with and after taking into consideration the explanation provided, the Settlement Commission shall within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of notice allow the application to be proceeded with or reject, as the case may be. Once an application is allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C, the exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Commission to exercise the powers and perform the functions of Customs officer starts as per sub-section (2) of Section 127F. In the meanwhile it was informed by the jurisdictional Commissioner that show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. RD/ADC/ACE/89/2017, dated 17-11-2017 and was dispatched on 1-12-2017. 13. In view of the above and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
