2015 (1) TMI 327 - HC - Customs

Court upholds Settlement Commission's jurisdiction under Customs Act, dismissing challenge to settle smuggling case.

The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus Shri Viney Jain

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's decision, affirming the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 127B of the ... Jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission - Confiscation of Goods – Interest and Penalty – the applicant moved the Settlement Commission under Section 127B – Held that:- In Ashok Kumar Jain (2013 (8) TMI 317 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the passenger had brought the goods with him and he was required to fill in the disembarkation card which he did and, in it, he declared the value of the goods imported as “baggage”. In the present case, the respondent had also filled the disembarkation card, but he had left the description and value of the goods as blank. So, the two cases, that is, the case in the present writ petition and the one in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) are quite similar and the issue raised is identical - plea raised by the petitioner is entirely covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra). Consequently, we hold that the Settlement Commission had the jurisdiction to settle the case - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The writ petition challenged an order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission concerning an application filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application as the respondent did not comply with the conditions specified in the first proviso to Section 127B. The respondent had been intercepted at the airport with goods suspected to be smuggled, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The revenue objected to the settlement application, arguing that the respondent had not filed a bill of entry as required by Section 127B and that the case involved smuggling, precluding any duty liability disclosure. Despite the revenue's objections, the Settlement Commission approved the settlement, prompting the petitioner to challenge the decision based on jurisdictional grounds.The key argument centered on whether the respondent's case fell within the scope of Section 127B for settlement by the Commission. The petitioner relied on a previous decision where a similar jurisdictional issue was raised, emphasizing the necessity of filing a bill of entry or shipping bill for the Commission's jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench's ruling in the prior case clarified that the provisions conferring jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission should not be narrowly construed. The Division Bench highlighted that if the legislative intent was to exclude baggage claims from the Commission's jurisdiction, it would have been explicitly stated. Drawing parallels between the present case and the precedent, the Court concluded that the Settlement Commission indeed had the jurisdiction to settle the case. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's decision was dismissed for lacking merit, with no costs imposed.In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of Section 127B of the Customs Act regarding the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction. The Court, guided by precedent, determined that the Commission had the authority to settle the case despite the petitioner's objections. The ruling underscored the importance of not narrowly construing the statutory provisions and upheld the Settlement Commission's decision in this instance.