2002 (7) TMI 269 - Commission - Central Excise

Settlement Commission denies 10 applications for Customs Act violations.

IN RE: SUREN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

The Settlement Commission rejected 10 applications under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the applicants failed to demonstrate compliance with ... Settlement of case Issues Involved:1. Eligibility to file an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Linkage of seized goods with the Bills of Entry.3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 127B(1) of the Act.4. Objections raised by Revenue.5. Admission of the applications by the Settlement Commission.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility to File an Application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962:The applicants contended that they were eligible to file the application as the 180-day period from the date of seizure had expired, making the prohibition under sub-section (2) of Section 127B inapplicable. However, the Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 127B, particularly the necessity of filing a Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill and the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) in relation to such Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill.2. Linkage of Seized Goods with the Bills of Entry:The applicants claimed that the seized goods were part of consignments imported under specific Bills of Entry. However, the Commission observed that there was no material evidence to connect the seized goods with the mentioned Bills of Entry. The goods seized from the trucks and godown on 7-8-2001 could not be linked to the imports made in 1998 and 1999. The Commission noted discrepancies in the applicants' claims, including contradictory statements in a Writ Petition filed by the second applicant.3. Compliance with the Provisions of Section 127B(1) of the Act:The Commission emphasized that for an application to be admitted under Section 127B(1), the applicant must have filed a Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill and received an SCN in relation to it. The Commission found that the applicants did not meet this criterion as there was no Bill of Entry filed for the seized goods, and the SCN referred to was not related to the Bills of Entry mentioned in the applications.4. Objections Raised by Revenue:Revenue raised three main objections:- Lack of material to link the seized goods with the Bills of Entry.- The case involved smuggling and concealment of non-declared goods, thus falling outside the purview of the Settlement Commission.- The applicants' non-cooperation during the investigation and the extensive span of investigation dating back to 1998.The Commission agreed with Revenue's objections, particularly noting the absence of evidence to connect the seized goods with the claimed imports and the non-cooperation of the applicants.5. Admission of the Applications by the Settlement Commission:The Commission concluded that the applications did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under Section 127B(1) due to the lack of a Bill of Entry for the seized goods and the absence of a related SCN. Consequently, the applications were deemed ineligible for consideration by the Settlement Commission.Conclusion:The Settlement Commission rejected the 10 applications filed by the applicants, determining that they did not meet the necessary requirements under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applications were not allowed to proceed under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Act.