TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PVC resin without payment of Customs duty with the help and indulgence of Shri Dharamvir Bansal and that the goods imported under advance licences which were got issued from the office of Jt. DGFT, Ludhiana with the condition of 100% bank guarantee, were got cleared from the Customs without submitting arty bank guarantee on the basis of forged letters, the officers DRI, on 1-7-2005, searched the factory and office premises of M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. located in Distt. Patiala and Panchkula, respectively and residential premises of the persons connected with the said imports. During the search, a number of documents and a rubber stamp in Urdu with markings in English as 'Sharjah, UAE Trade Plus Trading Establishment' considered relevant to the investigation were recovered and resumed. During investigations, the statements of a number of persons connected with the said imports including those of Shri Dharamvir Bansal, the applicant (Shri Vinod Kumar Garg) and Shri V.K. Bansal were recorded. Shri Dharamvir Bansal was arrested on 2-7-2005. Office and factory premises of the applicant's company M/s. Veekay Poly Coats Ltd. were also searched on 6-7- 2005. On 1-8-2005, factory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shivalik Plastichem (India) Limited. S. No. Advance Lic. No./ Date Bill of entry no./ date Items Qty. (MT) Assessable Value Duty forgone (Rs.) Port of Import 6. 2210004049/22-12-04 420362/16-4-05 PVC Resin 112 4308340 1228308 ICD TKD 420352/16-4-05 PVC Resin 112 4308340 1228308 ICD TKD 420483/19-4-05 PVC Resin 56 2154170 614176 ICD TKD Total 280 1,15,40,196 30,70,792 Though there was legal obligation not to sell or divert the duty free imported raw material in a manner other than as stipulated in the EXIM Policy and Customs duty exemption notification, yet facts as brought out by investigation revealed that S/Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal and Dharamvir Bansal imported duty free PVC Resin in connivance with the applicant (i.e., Shri V.K. Garg of M/s. Veekay Poly Coats Limited, New Delhi) and that immediately after importation of raw material in the names of their companies against the said advance licenses, the entire duty free raw material was diverted clandestinely in the domestic market in contravention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Dharamvir Bansal and Shri Vinod Kurnar Barisal and to the applicant Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, MD, M/s. Veekay Polycoats Ltd., proposing to confiscate 800 MT PVC Resin imported under 04 advance licences (Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 of Table-A above) in the name of M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. which was subsequently diverted, demanding jointly and severally from them duty of Rs. 96,66,029/- fore gone at the time of import in respect of aforementioned 800 MT of PVC Resin and proposing to appropriate amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- deposited by way of bank drafts by the applicant Shri V.K. Garg towards the customs duty so payable. Interest and penalty provisions were also invoked in the SCN. 3.2 Further, the SCN was also issued to M/s. Shivalik Plastichem India Ltd., Panchkula, its MD Shri Dharamvir Bansal and Shri V. K. Bansal and the applicant Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, (MD of M/s. V. K. Polycoats Ltd.) proposing to confiscate 280 MT of the PVC resin imported under the above mentioned one license (Sl. No. 6 of Table-A above) and which was subsequently diverted, demanding jointly and severally from them the duty of Rs. 30,70,792/ foregone at the time of import in respect of aforementioned 280 MT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against him as defined in Clause (b) of Section 127A of the Act can also file a settlement application. He further stated that Settlement Commission as in the case of A. Mahesh Raj [2001 (131) E.L.T. 707 (Sett. Comm.)] had held in Para 6 of the said order that as per Section 127 B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is not the importer or the exporter alone but any other person can also make an application containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer. The ld. advocate, therefore, requested that the application of the applicant may be admitted and allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C(1) of the Act as the applicant fulfills all the conditions for admission set out in Section 127B of the Act namely, the accepted amount being more than Rs. 2,00,000/-, the entire accepted liability having already been deposited, the SCN having already been issued and the Bill of Entry having already been filed. 7. The representative of the Revenue opposed the admission of the application on the ground that Shri Vinod Bansal of M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. and M/s. Shivalik Plastichem (India) Ltd. was not before the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the case cited by the applicant. According to the Revenue, in the case of Yousuff Kasim Sait [2003 (161) E.L.T. 1069 (Sett. Comm.)], the Settlement Commission had observed that persons referred to in Section 45(3), 82(1), 125(2), 147(3), 128 and 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 would be 'any other person chargeable to duty' under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The applicant, according to the Revenue, does not fall in any of these sections of the Customs Act. Revenue has also pleaded that the argument of the applicant is self-contradictory. If as argued by the applicant, he merely purchased the goods imported by M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. who imported it duty free, then the applicant is neither the real importer/owner of goods nor is covered under the category of 'any other person' who can be charged to duty. Applicant is also arguing that duty is not recoverable from him. On the other hand, the applicant is arguing before the Settlement Commission that since duty has been demanded in the SCN from him, he is liable to duty and entitled to approach the Settlement Commission without admitting that he is liable to duty. However, the evidence shows that he is the real import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the proper officer." When viewed in the light of above conclusion of the Special Bench, it is seen that in respect of the application under consideration, Revenue has already conceded that it is a 'case'. Undoubtedly, a SCN has already been issued in this case. The SCN without doubt charges the applicant (Shri V. K. Garg) with duty. Paras 61 and 62 of the SCN call upon the applicant to pay jointly or severally customs duty amounts of Rs. 96,66,029/- and Rs. 30,70,792/- respectively. Certainly, SCN would not demand duty of the applicant without being satisfied that he is chargeable to duty. The 'case' too relates to the applicant otherwise he would not have been charged with payment of duty. SCN has been duly issued to him asking him to pay the duty. There is also no allegation that B/E's were not filed. Further, though conceding that full and true disclosure of duty liability has been made by the applicant, Revenue has argued that the case should not be admitted because the manner in which such liability has been incurred has not been disclosed by the applicant. The Bench is of the view that the manner would normally comprise the method or rationale behind the way the admit....