2001 (10) TMI 337 - Commission - Customs

Settlement Commission rejects applications under Customs Act Section 127B due to lack of genuine dispute

IN RE: SHIWALYA TRADING CORPN.

IN RE: SHIWALYA TRADING CORPN. - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 829 (Sett. Comm.) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and admissibility of the application under Section 127B of the Customs Act.2. Definition and interpretation of the term 'case' under Section 127A(b) of the Customs Act.3. Finality of the Commissioner's order and its impact on the settlement application.4. Voluntary payment of duty, penalty, and interest by the applicant and its implications.5. Purpose and objective of the Settlement Commission.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Application:M/s. Shiwalya Trading Corporation and M/s. Shiwalya Spinning & Weaving Mills filed applications under Section 127B of the Customs Act for settlement of their cases relating to multiple Bills of Entry and respective Show Cause Notices. The Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, had already adjudicated the matter, confirming the duty amounts and imposing penalties and interest. The applicants argued that their applications were filed within the permissible appeal period, thus maintaining the pendency of proceedings.2. Definition and Interpretation of the Term 'Case' under Section 127A(b):The applicants contended that the term 'case' includes proceedings for levy, assessment, and collection of Customs duty, even if an order has been passed but the appeal period has not expired. They argued that the definition of 'case' should be read independently for original proceedings and those pending by way of appeal or revision. The Commission, however, interpreted the term 'case' to mean pending proceedings for levy, assessment, and collection of Customs duty, applicable to both original and appellate/revisionary proceedings.3. Finality of the Commissioner's Order and Its Impact on the Settlement Application:The applicants argued that the Commissioner's order does not acquire finality until confirmed in appeal, and thus the proceedings were still pending. The Commission disagreed, stating that the dispute relating to levy and assessment of duty had been finalized with the passing of the order by the Commissioner. The Commission emphasized that the statutory provisions for settlement are intended to resolve ongoing disputes, not those already finalized.4. Voluntary Payment of Duty, Penalty, and Interest by the Applicant and Its Implications:The applicants had voluntarily deposited the entire amount of anti-dumping duty before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and paid 25% of the penalty and the entire interest amount after the Commissioner's order. The Commission interpreted this as an acceptance of the Commissioner's order, indicating that the applicants were seeking immunity from prosecution and levy of fine rather than genuinely disputing the duty assessment.5. Purpose and Objective of the Settlement Commission:The Commission highlighted that the purpose of the Settlement Commission is to resolve disputes between the assessee and the Department. Since the applicants had already complied with the duty, penalty, and interest payments, the Commission found no grounds to admit the application for settlement. The Commission concluded that the applications were filed primarily to seek immunity, which did not align with the objectives of the Settlement Commission.Conclusion:The applications were rejected, and the Commission did not allow them to proceed under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act. The applicants were advised to resort to the appellate remedy if admissible under the law.