2014 (11) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 127 C(1) of the Customs Act. 2. Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner filed four Bills of Entry and declared that the goods were purchased on a High Sea Sale from M/s.Devashi Overseas and the goods were Polyester Fabrics (relevant Processed Man-made fabrics) (100% Polyester Dyed/Printed Fabrics) and the petitioner sought for clearance of the goods duty free under DFIA licences which covered Relevant Processed Man-made Fabrics (100% Polyester Dyed and Printed Fabrics) and the goods wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellate Tribunal or any Court; (vi) Whether the application contains a full and true disclosure of the manner in which additional duty liability has been derived as required under Section 127B. (vii) Whether any application is pending in the Appellate Tribunal or any Court under this Sub-Section. (viii) Whether the goods are covered under Section 123 of Customs Act/NDPS Act. 5. The relevant provision which the petitioner had to satisfy in the instant case was clause (viii), wherein, the petitioner had to state whether the goods are covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act/NDPS Act.  The petitioner, by its reply dated 28.09.2012, while answering the notice insofar as clause (viii) is concerned, stated that Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bric imported was different from what was declared in the Bill of Entry on account of percentage composition and GSM. 6. Further, it was stated that the petitioner is not entitled to import the utilizing items under DFIA Scheme. Further, it was stated that there was a clear evidence on record in the form of load port invoices obtained by the steamer agents from the load port shippers. Such stand was taken by the Commissioner before the Settlement Commission. Thereafter, the Settlement Commission afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the Revenue, wherein also, the jurisdictional Commissioner reiterated that the application is not maintainable in terms of the Proviso under Section 127B(1)(c) of the Custom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner falsely stated that Section 123 is not applicable to the goods imported by the applicant. The fact remains that Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner should have made a full and true disclosure stating that Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked and if it is the case of the petitioner that on account of the interpretation given by the Special Bench of Settlement Commission, the case could be entertained and they should have given the explanation. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had made a false statement. Therefore, based on such statement, order was passed on 04.10.2012 to allow the application to be proceeded with. That does not mean that the Commission is b....