Settlement Commission ruling upheld, application under Customs Act not maintainable. Lack of jurisdiction to review own orders.

The High Court upheld the decision of the Settlement Commission, ruling that the application under Section 127B of the Customs Act was not maintainable as the goods imported were notified under Section 123. The court found no violation of natural justice as the decision was supported by evidence. Additionally, the Settlement Commission was deemed to lack jurisdiction to review its own orders. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the previous orders, and the petitioners were advised to respond to the show cause notice and potentially reapply to the Settlement Commission if they could prove the goods were not covered by the notification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to review its own orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962:
The core issue revolves around whether the application filed by the petitioners under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, was maintainable. The Settlement Commission dismissed the application citing the third proviso to Section 127B, which excludes applications related to goods notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The petitioners had imported fabrics, which included "Polyester Satin Fabrics," "Polyester Taffeta Fabrics," and "100% Nylon Fabrics," all of which are notified goods under Section 123 as per notification No.204-CUS dated 20.07.1984. The Settlement Commission concluded that since the goods in question were notified under Section 123, the application was not maintainable. This decision was upheld by the Single Judge, and the High Court agreed, emphasizing that the goods were indeed notified under Section 123, thus attracting the third proviso to Section 127B.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the Settlement Commission's decision was in violation of the principles of natural justice because the report from the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) dated 7.8.2003 was not furnished to them. However, the High Court found that the Settlement Commission's decision was not solely based on the DGCEI report but also on other substantial evidence indicating that the goods were notified under Section 123. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the decision was supported by ample material evidence.

3. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to Review its Own Orders:
The petitioners filed a miscellaneous application seeking a review of the Settlement Commission's order dated 21.08.2003. The Settlement Commission dismissed this application, stating it lacked the jurisdiction to review its own orders. The High Court affirmed this view, indicating that the Settlement Commission correctly interpreted its lack of power to review its decisions, and the petitioners' attempt to disguise the review as a recall was rightly dismissed.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order and the Settlement Commission's decision. The court held that the application under Section 127B was not maintainable as the goods were notified under Section 123. Furthermore, there was no violation of natural justice, and the Settlement Commission correctly determined it had no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The petitioners were advised to reply to the show cause notice and, if they could establish that the goods did not fall under the notification No.204-CUS dated 20.07.1984 during adjudication, they could approach the Settlement Commission again under Section 127B.

Order:
1. Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. Order passed in WP No.5463/2004 on 13.4.2004 is hereby affirmed.
3. Costs made easy. Ordered accordingly.

---