2016 (11) TMI 622

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isposed of by settling the duty liability at Rs. 49,07,565 and directing release of the confiscated goods i.e. two diamond earrings on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and granting of full immunity from interest and penalty. 3. The brief facts are that the Respondent arrived from London at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 11th August 2004. After he walked through the green channel, he was intercepted by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence („DRI‟). He was found carrying two pairs of diamond earrings valued at UK Pound Sterling 140,847.14. This led to the arrest of the Respondent and his subsequent release on bail upon payment of Rs. 47,72,521 towards the customs duty. 4. As regards the prosecution of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f making proper enquiries." 6. Turning to the application made by the Respondent before CCESC, it is seen that it was submitted in Form SC[C]-1, in which the Respondent had disclosed the total amount of the duty involved and the additional amount of duty accepted by the Respondent as payable. The application had a verification at the bottom where the Respondent stated that the contents of this application "are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and no information relevant to the facts of the case has been suppressed". Further the annexures of the documents accompanying the application were stated to be true copies of the originals and the tables showing the financial transactions were stated to be correct and duly attested. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disclosure and even admitted the enhanced amount of duty amounting to Rs. 49,07,565 and deposited the same". In coming to the above conclusion, the CCESC considered what was disclosed in Annexure-2 of the application and proceeded to settle the case under Section 127C (7) of the Act in terms which have already been noticed hereinbefore. 10. What is significant is that even at this stage i.e. 12th July 2006, the CCESC did not have the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court which was passed on 25th January 2008. The submission of Mr. Satish Agarwala, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that Annexure-2 to the application filed by the Respondent before CCESC is no different from the statement made by him at the time of compounding of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 and the final order dated 12th July 2006 did not have the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 25th January 2008. The statement made by the Petitioner in Annexure-2 contains the details which have been adverted to by the Supreme Court in the said judgment while dealing with the disclosure made by the Respondent before the Chief Commissioner of Customs at the time of seeking compounding of the offences. The Court is of the view that the Settlement Commission should reconsider the application of the Respondent after taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25th January 2008 and after giving opportunity to the Respondent to demonstrate that notwithstanding the said judgment, the statement made in Annex....