2004 (12) TMI 710 - HC - Customs

Court quashes interest payment order, upholds Settlement Commission decision

Standard Surfactants Ltd. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order demanding interest payment. It reaffirmed the Settlement Commission's decision as ... - Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the denial of extension of export obligations.2. Suspension of importer-exporter code and bank guarantee.3. Settlement Commission's order on customs duty, interest, and penalties.4. Dispute over interest liability post-Settlement Commission's order.5. Interpretation of Settlement Commission's conclusive order.6. Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission under the Customs Act.7. Impact of circular on interest liability post-Settlement Commission's order.8. Legality of the impugned order demanding interest payment.9. Application of settled cases to prevent further liability.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the denial of extension for fulfilling export obligations after importing capital goods under a concessional license. The Government's refusal led to legal proceedings seeking a hearing and resolution.2. Despite the Settlement Commission's order settling customs duty, penalty, and interest, the Director General of Foreign Trade did not discharge the bank guarantee, leading to further disputes over interest liabilities.3. The Settlement Commission's decision, based on the Customs Act, exempted interest and penalties due to the petitioner's genuine disclosure. The Commission's order, unchallenged and final, was crucial in determining the liability.4. The respondent's insistence on interest payment conflicted with the Settlement Commission's order, which waived such liabilities. The petitioner argued that enforcing interest payment would nullify the Commission's decision.5. The Settlement Commission's conclusive order under the Customs Act prevented reopening of settled matters, including interest liabilities, ensuring immunity from prosecution.6. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission was debated, with the petitioner asserting that the Commission's decision on interest liability was binding and could not be voided.7. A circular post-Commission's order raised questions on interest liabilities, but the court emphasized the finality and validity of the Settlement Commission's decision.8. The impugned order demanding interest payment post-Commission's decision was deemed unlawful as it contradicted the settled matters and the Commission's findings.9. Precedents from tax laws and settlement schemes supported the petitioner's argument that settled civil liabilities preclude further liabilities, including interest payments.In conclusion, the court quashed the order demanding interest payment, reaffirming the Settlement Commission's decision as conclusive, discharging the bank guarantee, and revoking the suspension of the importer-exporter code, holding the petitioner not liable for any further amounts.