Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission had jurisdiction to direct payment of interest on short-paid customs duty without a fresh show cause notice, where the short levy arose from suppression of facts and wilful misstatement.
Analysis: Interest under the customs scheme is compensatory and becomes payable by operation of law where duty is short levied or not levied due to suppression or wilful misstatement. The settlement mechanism empowers the Commission to pass orders on matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case, and to include terms of settlement concerning duty, penalty, and interest. The Commission also has the powers of the customs for the purpose of settlement. Since the case itself involved a duty demand arising from suppression, interest was part of the settlement controversy and could be directed without requiring a separate notice for that component. The question whether a fresh notice is necessary in a situation where a person is not before the Settlement Commission was not decided.
Conclusion: The direction to pay interest was within jurisdiction and the challenge to it failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where short-levied customs duty is found to arise from suppression or wilful misstatement, interest follows by statutory operation and the Settlement Commission may include such interest in the terms of settlement within its jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962.