TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 23 October 2012, the Commission dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground of failure of the petitioner to make full and true disclosure of duty liability under Section 127B(1) of the Act. 2) Briefly facts leading to this petition are as under: a) On specific information the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) examined one container. On examination the container was seized on 29 September 2011. It was found that the petitioners had in the bill of entry dated 28 September 2011 covering the examined container declared that it had 439 carton of hair clips. However, on examination it was found that it had only 276 cartons of hair clips while remaining 163 cartons were found to contain glass chatons of different ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the petitioner was allowed to be proceeded with. In its application the petitioners admitted the additional duty liability of Rs.80.14 lacs i.e. Rs.78.85 lacs in respect of chatons and Rs.11.28 in respect of under valuation of other goods as against the demand of Rs.5.47 crores in the show cause notice. The applicants denied that any duty is payable in respect of the past six consignments on the ground that no evidence has been brought on record except retracted statement of the co applicant i.e. petitioner No.2. On 10 July 2012 the jurisdictional Commissioner filed his report opposing the application for settlement on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make full and true disclosure of its duty liability, particularly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and true disclosure of its duty liability. Therefore, the application for settlement filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the impugned order dated 23 October 2013. 6) Mr. Advani learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there has been a failure of justice in view of the fact that after the hearing before the Settlement Commission on 28 September 2012 they were able to obtain documents/inspection reports in respect of six earlier consignments carried out by the Customs department which would indicate that goods imported were only cutlery as declared in the bills of entry. Consequently, by letters dated 19 October 2012, 22 October 20123 and 31 October 2012 the petitioners requested the Commission to grant an additiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x earlier consignments. The petitioners in their application sought to settle only the dispute with regard to the seized consignment. Before the Commission the revenue had filed a report opposing the settlement for failure to disclose fully and truly all facts on the part of the petitioners particularly, in respect of the six earlier consignments. Therefore, the petitioners were on notice about the objection of the revenue and they could have led evidence in support yet the petitioner chose to contest the Commissioner's report only on the ground that the statement made by the coapplicant i.e. petitioner No.2 had been retracted and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had imported glass chatons on six earlier occasi....