2004 (11) TMI 452 - Commission - Customs

Settlement granted for imported car case, adjusting duty liability and granting immunities under Customs Act

The Settlement Commission found the application maintainable for Shri Idulla Babu Rao's imported car case, allowing proceedings under Section 127C(1) due ... Settlement application - Maintainability of - Settlement of case - Immunity from fine and penalty Issues:1. Admission and final hearings in the case of Shri Idulla Babu Rao.2. Import of a used Toyota Land Cruiser car and customs valuation.3. Conditions for import of used cars by individuals settling permanently in India.4. Detention and legal proceedings related to the imported car.5. Application for settlement under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.6. Compliance with the mandatory pre-conditions for settlement.7. Arguments for and against admission of the case before the Settlement Commission.8. Decision on the maintainability of the application and settlement terms.9. Granting of immunities and settlement terms.10. Settlement of customs duty, fine, and penalty.11. Non-availing of benefits under Public Notice.12. Specific provisions of Section 127H(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The case involved the admission and final hearings concerning Shri Idulla Babu Rao, who imported a used Toyota Land Cruiser car and faced issues with customs valuation. The applicant returned to India for permanent residence after a stay in Dubai, leading to complications regarding the conditions for importing used cars by individuals settling in India permanently.2. The applicant's car was initially detained due to non-compliance with the one-year possession requirement as per the amended import regulations. Legal proceedings ensued, including a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court for provisional release of the car, which was later withdrawn with the issuance of a show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.3. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application for settlement under Section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, disclosing additional duty liability. The Revenue raised objections citing non-compliance with pre-conditions for settlement, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice.4. The applicant argued for admission based on the detention/seizure of the car since March 2004 and the subsequent issuance of a show cause notice as per the High Court's order. The Revenue opposed admission, highlighting delays in cooperation during investigations.5. The Settlement Commission found the application maintainable as the car was in custody since March 2004 and allowed the case to proceed under Section 127C(1) due to the show cause notice issuance. The applicant's deposited duty liability was adjusted, and immunities were granted under Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act.6. The settlement terms included the total duty amount, immunity from fines and penalties, and a specific mention that the applicant did not avail benefits under a particular Public Notice. Additionally, the applicant was reminded of the provisions of Section 127H(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.