Settlement Commission Resolves Dual Benefit Case

The Settlement Commission, after investigating the dual benefit availed by the applicant under two schemes, settled the case under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The settlement required payment of customs duty, interest, penalty, and allowed redemption of seized goods upon payment of a fine. Immunity from prosecution was granted with specific conditions. The order outlined consequences for non-compliance and non-payment within the specified time. The applicant was advised on order implementation, and a copy was provided to the jurisdictional Commissioner for enforcement.

---

---

Issues:
Settlement applications under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding dual benefit availed by the applicant, denial of customs duty benefit, penalty, confiscation of goods, and transfer of application.

Analysis:
The settlement applications, numbered 5228/2016, 5266/2016, 5229/2016, and 5267/2016, were filed by the applicant and co-applicant under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute arose from availing dual benefits under Zero Duty EPCG Scheme and SHIS Scheme, leading to a Show Cause Notice issued by the DRI. The applicant admitted the duty liability and requested immunity from penalty and prosecution. The case was transferred to the Principal Bench, Delhi, for settlement.

Upon investigation, it was found that the applicant had applied for both schemes, violating the provisions. The Settlement Commission observed that the applicant was not eligible for both benefits simultaneously. The applicant admitted the customs duty liability at the time of filing the application, which cannot be settled for less than the admitted amount. The Commission noted the lack of mala fide intent and full cooperation from the applicant during the proceedings.

Considering the circumstances, the Commission settled the case under Section 127C(5) of the Act. The settlement included the payment of customs duty, interest, penalty, and an option for the applicant to redeem the seized goods on payment of a fine. Immunity from prosecution was granted to the applicant and co-applicant under Section 127H(1), with specific conditions outlined in the order.

The order highlighted provisions for withdrawal of immunity in case of non-compliance or false evidence. It also specified the consequences of non-payment of the settled amount within the stipulated time. The applicant was advised on the implementation of the order, and a copy was provided to the jurisdictional Commissioner for reference and enforcement.

---