TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; The above applications have been filed for settlement of their cases arising out of issue of a common Show Cause Notice F. No. DRI/MZU/C/INV-15/2009-10 dated 9-11-2010 to the above named applicants by the DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai. 2.1 Brief facts of the cases are that based on specific information that high value goods like furniture, chandeliers, glassware, etc., were being imported from UK and clandestinely cleared unchecked from Customs as unaccompanied baggage, the Revenue took up investigations into the same. The said goods were being imported along with courier parcels in the guise of personal effects at Unaccompanied Baggage Centre (U.B. Centre), Indira Docks, Mumbai. The same were being fraudulently cleared in the names of unrelated persons coming from Dubai. 2.2 The Revenue came to know that one consignment of 129 packages imported in container no. BAXU 9766411 (40') covered by IGM No. 34094/UB-14, booked in the name of one Sh. Shahul Hameed Shabu from Jabel Ali port was being cleared. It also came to be known that another similar consignment containing 256 packages consisting of 14 wooden crates and 242 courier parcels (colloquially known as "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used personal effects through unaccompanied baggage mode to evade Customs duty. The Revenue has dealt with the issue of import of Potlas separately and issued two (2) SCNs dated 21-5-2010 and 28-6-2010. The said two SCNs are not part of the present proceedings. Further investigations revealed that another similar consignment of 256 packages covered by BDF No. 1032, dated 18-11-2009 had been cleared on 18-11-2009. The value of the goods declared in the said BDF was Rs. 50,500/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,01,500/- by the Customs Authorities. A Customs duty of Rs. 26,497/- paid vide DR No. 977216 dated 18-11-2009. The said consignment had arrived in Container No. IKMU 5000190 (40') manifested vide IGM No. 34094/UB-15, gross weight 6381 Kgs, from Jabel Ali, UAE, vide Bill of Lading No. BAXSSS001783 dated 29-10-2009. 2.5 During investigation it was revealed that in both the cases the goods were forwarded by M/s. Maina Freight Forwarders, UK, owned by one Sh. Bhupendra Madlani, and the same were cleared at the U.B. Centre, Mumbai Port by one person by name Sh. Khan Abdul Aziz @ Salman. He cleared the said goods with the help of two persons named Sh. Dinesh Ganpat Yadav (an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai. Sh. Sharuk Passi told Sh. Salman to contact Sh. Mohit Kapoor for further co-ordination in respect of the said goods. Sh. Salman also informed the said Sh. Virender Uppal that the one package detained by the DRI, Delhi will have to be taken care of by him only (i.e., by Sh. Uppal himself). 2.8 Vide letter No. 23/81/2009-DZU, dated 14-12-2009, the Addl. Director, Delhi Zonal Unit, DRI, informed that nine (09) packages were found at the premises owned by the first applicant. The remaining one (01) package was found at the premises owned by Sh. Virender Uppal. The said letter further informed that the said goods were partially examined by DRI, Delhi under Panchnama dated 10-12-2009 and 11-12-2009 and handed over for safe custody to the owners of the said premises under Supratnama. Later, a team of Revenue officers from DRI, Mumbai re-examined the said goods at the said two premises. The goods at the premises of the first applicant were examined under Panchnama dated 23-12-2009 and found to be valued at about Rs. 80,74,000/-. The said goods were seized under Panchnama under the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled and hence liable to confiscation under the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es by the said Sh. Bhupendra Madlani of M/s. Maina Freight Forwards and the sum of GBP 30,000 included transportation costs, handling charges and Customs duties to be paid for importation of the said goods in India. 2.12 Both the applicants i.e., Sh. Sharuk Passi and M/s. Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla had made Revenue deposits during investigations and requested the Jurisdictional Commissioner (Commissioner of Customs - Gen., New Custom House, Mumbai) for provisional release of their respective goods. The same were provisionally released as under : S. No. Importer's Name Revenue's File No./Date Revenue Deposit Paid No. of Pckgs Assessable Value Customs Duty 1. Sh. Sharuk Passi vide letter dt. 11-1-2010 S/1-UB-1003/09-10 P dt. 5-3-2010 Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, Vide DD No. 512747 dt. 15-12-2009 of ICICI Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai Branch. 29 1,81,87,582 65,56,623 2. Sh. Sandeep Khosla vide letter dt. 11-1-2010 S/1-UB-1003/ 09-10 P dt. 5-3-2010 Rs. 15,00,000/- vide DD No. 047081 dt. 21-12-2009 of Union Bank of India, Juhu Vile Parle Branch, Mumbai 03 30,34,825 10,94,055 3. Sh. Virender Uppal vide letter dt. 31-12-2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s-declaration of the goods and resultant loss of revenue to the exchequer. 3.3 Investigations revealed that first applicant imported goods worth Rs. 1,81,87,582/- involving Customs duty of Rs. 65,56,623/-. The second applicant imported goods valued at Rs. 30,34,825/- with a Customs duty incident of Rs. 10,94,055/-. The said duty amounts were calculated at the duty rate of 35%, Edu. Cess of 2% and High. Edu. Cess of 1%. The exchange rate of the GBP has been taken at 1 GBP = Rs. 77.50. Since the said goods were declared as used household items, apparently no payment of Customs duty was made on the said goods. Accordingly, the Revenue issued a common SCN dated 9-11-2010 proposing recovery of the unpaid Customs duty amounts from the applicants in addition to confiscation of the said goods and imposition of penalty and fine. The goods have since been provisionally released to the respective importers. 3.4 In their applications the applicants have admitted the entire duty as demanded by the revenue i.e., Rs. 65,56,623/- in case of the first applicant and Rs. 10,94,055/- in case of the second applicant. They have paid the said amount during investigations at the time of pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration for the same. The ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants have admitted the duty as demanded in the SCN as their additional duty liability and paid the same at the time of provisional release of the said goods. The ld. Advocate submitted that in fact the applicants deposited amounts much higher than the duty demanded from them in the SCN dated 9-11-2010. The ld. Advocate clarified that the first applicant Sh. Sharuk Passi deposited Rs. 1.10 Crore and the second applicant M/s. Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla deposited Rs. 15 Lakhs towards their duty liability. The ld. Advocate also pointed that the applicants were not contesting the calculation of duty and the valuation arrived at by the Revenue. 4.3 The ld. Advocate submitted that the transactions were all through legal channel, i.e. though credit card. The ld. Advocate stressed that there was no intention on the part of the applicants to evade Customs duty. He further submitted that the applicants were not habitual offenders and this was the first case in their life. The ld. Advocate submitted that though there was no Bill of Entry filed in the matters, the goods were cleared on the basis of BDF (Baggage Declarat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oking purpose and asked for relevant booking documents. However, the applicants chose to ignore the same. This clearly showed their intention to evade Customs duty. The said two applicants together paid a sum of GBP 30,000 (Rs. 23,25,000/- @ 1 GBP = Rs. 77.50) inclusive of Customs duty payable in India, for home delivery of the said goods in India. However, the Customs duty alone, together for both the applicants, amounted to Rs. 76,50,678/-. It was also clear that both the said applicants have been traveling to foreign destinations quite often. Therefore, it was clear that the applicants knew about the quantum of duty applicable on their items. Hence, in the case of present imports the complicity of the applicants was more than apparent. 4.6 The ld. Representative of the Revenue further pointed out that one consignment had already reached the destination at Delhi. The applicants, being well educated, could have asked for the Customs clearance documents which they failed to do. The Revenue further submitted that the two applicants could not be treated as bona fide importers as neither the goods were booked by them as evident from the Bill of Lading, nor the BDF filed in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods were seized on 2-12-2009, 17-12-2009 and 23-12-2009 after their import vide BDFs dated 18-11-2009 and 23-11-2009. The said goods were in possession of the applicants for a very inconsequential duration of time to demand any interest for the same. 5. The Bench has gone through the records of the case and heard the rival sides at length. The Bench observes that the Show Cause Notice issued in this case holds the two applicants as 'de facto importers' of the seized goods which have been provisionally released to them and in respect of which the duty payable has also been demanded from them. The two applicants have fully accepted the entire demand of duty made against them and have also deposited the same. The applicants have thus sought settlement of the cases against them and also pleaded for grant of immunity from fine, penalty etc. on grounds of having made true and full disclosures as well as for having fully co-operated during investigation and settlement proceedings. 5.1 The Revenue have however strongly opposed admission and maintainability of the two applications on grounds of non-fulfilment of essential eligibility conditions stipulated under proviso (a)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Bench, however, observes that the Revenue has admittedly not obtained any stay against the referred orders of Hon'ble Bombay and Madras High Courts so far. The Bench, therefore, holds that the Settlement Commission does not lack jurisdiction to settle the cases relating to Baggage and applications filed by the two applicants in the present case fulfil the eligibility conditions under Section 127B inasmuch as filing of BDFs can be validly construed as fulfilling the requirement of filing Bill of Entry. 5.3 We may now deal with the other related issue which has been raised in this regard by the Revenue. The Revenue has contended that BDFs in question have not been filed by the applicants in the present case but by other passengers on monetary consideration extended by the freight forwarded. The Bench, however, finds that the show cause notice issued in the present case has demanded duty from the said two applicants, treating said applicants as the de facto importers and owners of the goods in question. Further, there is no dispute about the fact that the entire amount of duty demanded from two applicants in the present case pertains to the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 127C of the Act for settlement of the case :- Customs Duty : The customs duty in the case of the first applicant, Sh. Sharuk Passi is settled at Rs. 65,56,623/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Three only). The first applicant has already paid an amount of Rs. 1.10 Crores as confirmed by Revenue. In the case of the second applicant, M/s. Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, the customs duty is settled at Rs. 10,94,055/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Four Thousand and Fifty Five only). The second applicant has already paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as confirmed by Revenue. Interest : As confirmed by the Revenue, no interest is payable as the seized goods were provisionally released to the applicants on their paying the above mentioned amounts which were more than the duty demanded from them in the SCN dated 9-11-2010. In respect of goods which were delivered to the applicants and seized from their premises, the duration of such enjoyment of the said goods was too less to demand any interest. Also the interest recoverable, if any, was to be paid from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid. However, the said....