2017 (9) TMI 331 - HC - Customs

Court allows writ petitions challenging Settlement Commission's rejection under DFRC scheme, emphasizing fair treatment for brokers.

Loon Karan Kawad Versus The Customs and Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs Sea Port, Chennai, The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Joint Director General of Foregin

The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the Settlement Commission's rejection of the broker's application under the DFRC scheme. It emphasized ... Rejection of application for settlement of case - levy of penalty on licence broker / CHA - seeking relief when importer got the relief - DFRC licence - import of leather chemicals - Held that: - this Court is not convinced with the order passed by the first respondent, not in purview with Section 127(B) of the Customs Act. Hence, the impugned order, dated 25.11.2003 passed by the first respondent is set aside to the limited extent with a direction to the first respondent to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner on par with other importers who have got the benefit of settlement Commission, without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner. Issues involved:The issues involve the denial of opportunity to the license broker before the authority despite the importer settling the issue before the Settlement Commission, the rejection of the broker's application by the Settlement Commission, and the subsequent challenge of the rejection in the Writ Petitions.Analysis:1. Denial of Opportunity to the License Broker:The petitioner, a broker of DFRC license, arranged for import of licenses under the DFRC scheme for import of leather chemicals. The respondent issued a Show Cause notice against the petitioner, the importer, and the clearing agent. The Settlement Commission rejected the petitioner's application, citing non-compliance with Customs Act sections. The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's decision should apply to all parties involved, as per Supreme Court precedent. The court noted that denying the broker the opportunity before the authority, while the importer settled the issue, was unsustainable based on legal precedents.2. Rejection by the Settlement Commission:The Settlement Commission rejected the petitioner's application, stating non-compliance with Customs Act sections. The petitioner contended that since the importer received a clean chit from the Settlement Commission, the broker should not be penalized. The court highlighted that the importer's nominal penalty did not justify extreme penalties on the broker, as it would deprive them of their livelihood. Relying on the Settlement Commission's decision and legal principles, the court set aside the impugned order and closed the case.3. Legal Precedents and Court's Decision:The court referenced legal decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and previous judgments by the same court. It emphasized that the Settlement Commission's decision should apply to all involved parties in a case. The court found the first respondent's order not in line with Section 127(B) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the court partly allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned order and directing the first respondent to consider the broker's application on par with other importers who benefited from the Settlement Commission.In conclusion, the court's decision in the Writ Petitions addressed the denial of opportunity to the broker, the rejection by the Settlement Commission, and the application of legal precedents to ensure fair treatment for all parties involved in the import licensing issue under the DFRC scheme.