TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia, R/o Post Bharuch, Haldarva, Gujarat and the applications filed on 22-11-2000 by Shri Ajit Satam, Director of M/s. Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sujit Satam, Director of M/s. Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Hamid Umerji Patel under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Customs & Central Excise, Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :   Shri Mohammed Aslam Kapadia (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), a resident of Gujarat was settled in London from 1989 onwards. In August, 1999 he purchased one new Mercedes Benz S 320 Model Car and instructed M/s. Euro Worldwide Car Ltd. from whom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees in the instant SCN also filed applications dated 22-11-2000 under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Customs & Central Excise, Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai. 6. The hearing for admission of the applications of the applicant and the 4 co-noticees was fixed on 14-12-2000. During the hearing, the learned Advocate of the applicant submitted that the applicant, a resident of Gujarat was settled in London after his marriage in 1989, to a British National. In the year 1999, he decided to settle in India. In accordance with the Public Notice 3(PN)97-02, dated 31-3-1997, the applicant was entitled to bring one car into India subject to the conditions contained in the Public Notice. The applicant returned alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rightful owner of the said vehicle. The DRI officers intercepted the container containing the said vehicle. In the meanwhile, the applicant had filed B/E No. 112552, dated 6-3-2000 through his clearing agent M/s. Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Invoice of the said vehicle was not filed. As per the Custom House practice the assessable value of the said vehicle is determined on the basis of the manufacturer's price and after giving first check and allowing permissible depreciation and deduction. Therefore, the applicant's clearing agent declared only notional value as assessable value in the Bill of Entry before the first check was given. The DRI officers took up the B/E for further investigation. The DRI officers recorded the statements ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission directed that the applicant shall pay the admitted duty liability of Rs. 17,90,194.41 within one month of receipt of the order. Further, the applicant shall also execute a Bond for the value of Rs. 95 lakhs with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 27 lakhs before the car is released to him by Mumbai DRI who shall carry out the necessary verification of the passport and the signature at the time of release of the vehicle. The vehicle shall be released immediately on execution of the bond. Further, the five signatures of the applicant shall be taken by the DRI, Mumbai. 11. The Commission vide Interim Order dated 15-1-2001 allowed the applications of the 4 co-noticees to be proceeded with under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, Shri Mohammed Aslam Kapadia was the main Applicant and the Co-Noticees were S/Shri Hameed Patel, Ajit Satam, Sujit Satam and M/s. Gokuldas Hansraj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 18. The Commission vide its order on 18th December, 2000 allowed the application filed by the main Applicant M/s. Mohammed Aslam Kapadia to be proceeded with under sub-Section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also mentioned in this order that the Applicant shall pay the admitted duty liability of Rs. 17,90,194.41 within one month of receipt of the said order. The Applicant was also asked to execute a Bond for the value of Rs. 95 lakh with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 27 lakh before the car was released to him by Mumbai DRI. The latter was directed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, I regret my inability to appear before the Hon'ble Commission in this matter." 22. During the course of the hearing on 19th July, 2001, it was brought to the notice of the Commission that the admission order passed by the Commission has not been complied with by the Applicant. In other words, neither the admitted duty liability of Rs. 17,90,194.41 was paid by Shri Mohammed Aslam Kapadia nor did he execute a Bond for Rs. 95 lakh with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 27 lakh as directed by the Commission in its admission order. 23. The Commission also notices that the Advocate representing the Applicant and the Co-Noticees has no instructions regarding the case after the admission order was passed and the Advocate also regretted his ....