9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom time to time. This Court is left with the considered view that this is an appropriate case for directing the second respondent Settlement Commission to entertain the application of writ petitioner being application dated 16.10.2018, after first respondent appropriates the Bank Guarantees for a total sum of ₹ 25,50,000/- - After encashment of Bank Guarantees in the aforementioned manner by first respondent, the second respondent/ Settlement Commission shall take up application of the writ petitioner being application dated 16.10.2018 under Section 127-B of the said Act, seeking waiver of fine, penalty and immunity from prosecution qua said consignment, hear the application of the writ petitioner on its own merits and dispose of the same. Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.31058 and 31059 of 2018 And W.M.P.No.36237 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner in both WPs : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For the Respondents in both WPs : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government COMMON ORDER Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel on record for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 'said consignment' for the sake of convenience and clarity. (d) There is no disputation or disagreement between writ petitioner/importer and the respondents regarding the nature of goods which constitute the said consignment. In other words, there is no disputation between the parties in lis before this Court regarding importability of said consignment and that the said consignment is Christmas Gift Items. (e) Writ petitioner valued the said consignment at ₹ 30,62,254/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Sixtytwo Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Four only). However, respondents i.e., Customs Department took the stand that said consignment has been undervalued and that the same ought to have been valued at ₹ 41,08,830/- (Rupees Fortyone Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty only). (f) To be noted, there is no disputation or disagreement about the nature of consignment or about the classification of consignment. There is no disputation even about the rate of duty payable and it is only a case of disputation qua valuation. While writ petitioner has valued said consignment at little over ₹ 30.62 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Settlement Commission being aforementioned application dated 16.10.2018, writ petitioner made a request that aforesaid Bank Guarantees for a total sum of ₹ 25,50,000/- can be encashed and the same can be appropriated towards condition precedent adumbrated in clause (c) of First Proviso to Section 127-B(1). To be noted, writ petitioner has also made a sub-application before said Settlement Commission in this regard. (l) Even when the sub-application in this regard was pending, second respondent i.e., said Settlement Commission, passed an 'order dated 30.10.2018 bearing Reference F. No.S.A.CUS/38/2018-SC' (hereinafter 'impugned order') wherein and whereby, the said application dated 16.10.2018 made by the writ petitioner was dismissed for noncompliance with the aforesaid condition precedent of payment of differential duty. To be noted, vide impugned order, application made by writ petitioner was rejected solely on the ground of non-compliance with the condition precedent without going into merits of the matter. (m) Assailing the impugned order, instant writ petitions have been filed. In one writ petition i.e., WP No.31059 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to Customs Department and therefore, it is not a case of contraband or prohibited item. In other words, this Court is also of the considered view that said consignment is extremely innocuous and there is no issue regarding importability of said consignment. To be noted, this Court has passed this order in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In other words, what has weighed in the mind of this Court is said consignment is absolutely innocuous and there is no issue other than valuation issue. This dovetailed with the undisputed position that there is no disputation regarding classification or rate of duty makes it clear that the nature of matter itself is not complex. Writ petitioner has also shown his bona fide by not only furnishing Bank Guarantees for a total sum of ₹ 25,50,000/-, but also by renewing the same from time to time. 10. Therefore, this Court is left with the considered view that this is an appropriate case for directing the second respondent Settlement Commission to entertain the application of writ petitioner being application dated 16.10.2018, after first respondent appropriates the Bank Guarantees for a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
