TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Ramesh Yadav and former Director Shri Mrigendar Singh of the second applicant and one Shri Harish Kumar have filed separate Applications for settlement of their case relating to Bill of Entry No. 203904, dated 27-11-1998, 204772, dated 23-12-1998 and 209559, dated 7-5-1999 and seizure of a consignment from two trucks along with other material belonging to the second applicant and the show cause notice (SCN) No. 708/58/OSD/2001-I, dated 25-1-2002 under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for extension of time for issue of SCN by another six months. The date of the seizure shown in the application is 7-8-2001 and the additional amount accepted as is Rs. 4,94,094/- as against the total duty liability of Rs. 19,79,935/-. It is stated that duty amounting to Rs. 14,85,841/- had been deposited in respect of the goods in question at the time of clearance. These applications have been registered in the Commission as SC(C) No. 214 to 223/2002, dated 14-2-2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on receipt of an information regarding storage of unaccounted metal scraps of foreign origin in S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove two companies. 4. Since, a large number of persons are required to be examined who appear to have adopted delaying tactics; the Dy. Director, DRI, New Delhi issued the SCN in question requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the time-limit for issue of SCN be not extended for a further period of 6 months from 6-2-2002 to 6-8-2002 as per sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) submitted a report on 22-3-2002 under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Act. The DRI also submitted a report dated 26-3-2002. In both these reports, the Commissioner and the DRI strongly objected to the admission of the application. 6. The second applicant submitted a letter dated 25-3-2002 informing that a Writ Petition bearing No. 5941/2001 had been filed by them for release of goods seized illegally and the same has been withdrawn on 19-3-2002 in view of application for settlement of the case. The case was heard for admission on 28th March, 2002. 7. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant explained the case and stated that they were eligible to file the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e duty liability on account of the mis-declaration in the weight of the goods imported through the aforesaid Bills of Entry. 9. The Jurisdictional Commissioner has submitted his further report under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Act incorporating his comments on the amended application and objecting to the admission thereof. 10. The applications were heard for admission on 25th June, 2002 along with other set of applications filed by the first applicant and 8 others. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted the brief facts of the case as mentioned in their application and stressed that there is no matter relating to levy, assessment and collection of Customs Duty pending before any Court in this particular case and that the applicant No. 1 has accepted to pay the entire amount of duty. The Advocate submitted before the Bench that they satisfy all the eligibility conditions of Section 127B of the Act. It is submitted that the applicant is permitted to approach the Commission after completion of 180 days from the date of the seizure in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 127B. Reliance was placed on the order of this Bench in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided : Provided that no such application shall be made unless - (a) the applicant has filed a bill of entry, or a shipping bill, in respect of import or export of goods (as the case may be, and in relation to such Bill of entry or shipping bill) a show cause notice has been issued to him by the proper officer; (Emphasis supplied) (b) the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application exceeds two lakh rupees : Provided further that no application shall be entertained by the Settlement Commission under this sub-section in cases which are pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any Court : Provided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) has been committed : Provided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made for the interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). (2)  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application; but he may raise objections at the time of hearing fixed by the Settlement Commission for admission of the application and the date of such hearing shall be communicated by the Settlement Commission to the applicant and the Commissioner of Customs within a period not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of such applications, unless the presiding officer of the Bench extends the said period of two months, after recording the reasons in writing." 12. Revenue's main objections against the admission of these applications are three folds - (i) The goods covered by the present applications were seized from two trucks and from a godown on 7-8-2001 and there is no material to link them with the three Bills of Entry dated 27-11-1998, 23-12-1998 and 7-5-1999 referred to by the applicant. Further there is no material on record to show that the seized goods were imported by the applicant. In view of the above, it is submitted that the applications do not satisfy Clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 127B. (ii) The present case is a case of non-declaration and concealment of non-dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sub-section (1) of Section 127B requires that no application for settlement can be made unless the applicant has filed a Bill of Entry, or a Shipping Bill, in respect of import and export of goods, as the case may be, and in relation to such Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill a show cause notice has been issued to him by the proper officer. We find that there is no Bill of Entry filed or shown to have been filed in respect of the goods seized on 7-8-2001 which are the subject-matter of the present applications. The three Bills of Entry referred to in the applications cannot be co-related to the goods under seizure. We have also perused the Panchnama dated 7-8-2001 of the seizure (Annexure-C of the application) and we find that the goods under seizure are not in original import packing and that they cannot be connected to the goods claimed to have been imported in 1998-99. We also observe that no copies of the concerned Bills of Entry have been submitted by the applicant with his applications, nor any material brought before us during the hearing to show that the goods imported and the goods seized are the same. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant does not satisfy Claus....