Settlement Commission rules against M/s. R.G. Sales Pvt. Ltd. for lack of cooperation and delaying tactics.

The Settlement Commission found that the applicant, M/s. R.G. Sales Pvt. Ltd., failed to fulfill its duty liability despite admitting to it. The applicant employed delaying tactics, lacked cooperation, and did not provide satisfactory responses, indicating a lack of genuine intent to settle the case. Consequently, the case was referred back to the Commissioner of Customs for further action as if the settlement applications had not been made.

---

---

Issues:
1. Settlement application filed for non-fulfillment of export obligation under an advance license.
2. Admitted duty liability not paid by the applicant.
3. Delaying tactics employed by the applicant in payment of duty liability.
4. Lack of cooperation by the applicant with the Settlement Commission.

Issue 1: Settlement application filed for non-fulfillment of export obligation under an advance license

The case involved M/s. R.G. Sales Pvt. Ltd. and a Director in the firm who filed settlement applications in response to a Show Cause Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SIB, Kolkata. The applicant held an advance license for importing fabrics with an obligation to export garments. However, investigations revealed that the goods imported were not used for the intended purpose and might have been disposed of in the domestic market. The Show Cause Notice raised various demands and penal actions under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Admitted duty liability not paid by the applicant

After admission of the settlement applications, the Commission directed the applicant to pay the admitted duty liability within a specified time frame. However, the applicant failed to comply with the payment directions. Revenue informed the Commission about discrepancies in the details provided by the applicant regarding bank guarantees and the actual amount deposited. Despite multiple opportunities and reminders, the applicant did not deposit the admitted duty liability, indicating a lack of cooperation.

Issue 3: Delaying tactics employed by the applicant in payment of duty liability

The applicant resorted to delaying tactics in paying the admitted duty liability, citing reasons such as detention under COFEPOSA Act and inability to contact the client. Requests for payment in installments were not accepted by the Commission, further complicating the situation. The applicant failed to provide details of properties for attachment or propose a feasible plan for paying the duty liability, leading to prolonged non-payment.

Issue 4: Lack of cooperation by the applicant with the Settlement Commission

The Commission noted that the applicant had not cooperated effectively in the proceedings. Despite requests for information on properties and means of payment, the applicant did not provide satisfactory responses. The Commission concluded that the applicant's actions indicated a lack of genuine intent to settle the case and suggested that the applicant was employing delaying tactics to avoid fulfilling the duty liability. Consequently, the case was referred back to the Commissioner of Customs for further action as if the settlement applications had not been made.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the settlement application, non-payment of duty liability, delaying tactics, and lack of cooperation by the applicant with the Settlement Commission.

---