9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularise the default, the amount of interest paid by the importer shall not exceed the amount of duty if such regularisation has been dealt in terms of Public Notice of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 12th August, 2013 - However, in the present case the Settlement Commission had exercised its discretion the as per the provision as it stood at that point of time and granted partial waiver of interest. There are no infirmity in the exercise of discretion vested with the settlement commission while granting partial waiver to the petitioner at that point of time - Since the petitioner had wrongly assumed that it could challenge the impugned order of the 1st respondent Settlement Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport goods duty-free as per the corresponding Customs Notifications issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance. 5. Imports were made under Customs Notification No 159/90-Cus dated 13.3.1990 and Customs Notification 204/92 Cus dated 19.5.1992 issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance which were issued to implement the Policy of the Central Government, Ministry of Commerce under the aforesaid Export Import Policy. 6. At the time of obtaining respective advance licences, the petitioner had executed bonds and had undertaken to pay interest at 24% in the event of failure to fulfil the export obligation undertaken under the respective advance licence issued to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner cleared the goods wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 39,25,511/- and prayed for immunity from penalty and waiver of interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1982. The petitioner paid the aforesaid amount on 27.5.2005. 14. Before the Settlement Commission, the petitioner primarily submitted that there is no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 and the relevant notification cited above which enabled the 2nd respondent to levy interest and penalty. In this connection, reference was made to several decisions of the courts before the Settlement Commission. 15. The Settlement Commission has passed the impugned final order No.15/2004-Customs dated 29.4.2004 and has allowed the application subject to the petitioner to pay a simple interest at 10% of the amount of duty within a perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co., Ltd., Birlagram.Nagda, AIR 1976 (SCC) 43 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter referred to the following decisions:- i) In Re : SRF Ltd., 2003(158 E.L.T.788 (Sett.Comm.) ii) Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai vs. S.R.F.Ltd., 2004 (164) E.L.T.412 (Mad.) iii) Rexnod Electronics and Controls Ltd., vs. Union of India, 2008 (224) E.L.T.184 (S.C) iv) Fal Industries Limited vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade 2014 (306) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.) v) Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt.Ltd.,vs. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T.626 (S.C.) vi) Pratibha Syntext Ltd., vs. Union of India , 2003(157) E.L.T.141 (Bom.) vii) Commissioner of Customs, Hyderbad vs. Pennar In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also considered the case laws. 25. The Central Government has Issued Notification No. 46/2013- Customs dated 26.9.2013. The said notification has amended the a host of Notifications including Notification No 204/92-Customs dated 19.5.1992 wherein it has been stated that in a case of default in export obligation, when the duty on goods is paid to regularise the default, the amount of interest paid by the importer shall not exceed the amount of duty if such regularisation has been dealt in terms of Public Notice of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 12th August, 2013. However, in the present case the Settlement Commission had exercised its discretion the as per the provision as it stood a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bond, we do not see any jurisdictional error has been committed by it in directing the payment of the said amount which is otherwise payable. In any event the appellant is not prejudiced thereby as irrespective of such direction, the appellant was bound to pay interest under the bond. 28. Since the revenue has not come forward with the challenge to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent Settlement Commission, I am not inclined to upset the order which has partly come in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner is one of an avarice. Having enjoyed duty free exemption it cannot ask for waiaver of interest. In fact, it would have been ideal for the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition particularly in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
