TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., by virtue of third proviso to Section 127B [read with Section 123(2)] of the Customs Act, lawfully entertained the application and proceeded to pass orders settling the issues urged. 2. The respondent, who is a former United Nations official, arrived at IGI Airport, Delhi, on 04.05.2014; carrying 6 gold bars weighing 1832.4 gms, valued at Rs. 45,45,222/-. She did not declare the gold either at the stage of clearing the customs area or disclose the information in the disembarkation slip. Upon search, the gold was detected and seized from her person. The show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2014. On 13.01.2015, the respondent moved the Settlement application which was finally disposed of and the matter settled by recording a final settl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the Revenue that the Settlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such an application as there was a complete bar provided in the third proviso to Section 127B(1) read with Section 123 of the said Act. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to draw some support from a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain: 2013 (292) ELT 32 (Del) as also a subsequent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Komal Jain v. Union of India and Another: 2014 (304) ELT 675 (Del). In Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), the issue of Section 123 has not been considered at all. Insofar as the decision in Komal Jain (supra) is concerned, the Division Bench itself, in paragraph 21, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent - assessee urged that the Settlement Commission proceeded to pass final orders, allowing the application, having regard to the jurisdiction it possesses and by relying upon its Special Bench order in Re: Idris Y. Porbandarwala, 2005 (186) ELT 356, which was also cited in the judgment in Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2013 (292) ELT 32. It is pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of that case the ground was that a quantity of the watches was sought to be smuggled and that the court had upheld the orders of the Settlement Commission. 6. Section 123 to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows: Section 123 in the Customs Act, 1962 123. Burden of proof in certain cases.- (1) Where any goods to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under-valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification 254 [or otherwise] and such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: Provided that no such application shall be made unless,- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h his application shall be liable to be rejected.] (2) Where any dutiable goods, books of account, other documents or any sale proceeds of the goods have been seized under section 110, the applicant shall not be entitled to make an application under subsection (1) before the expiry of one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure. (3) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be specified by rules. (4) An application made under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant. "(1) Any importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the applicant) may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided also that no application under this sub-section shall be made for the interpretation of the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975).". 8. The decision in Ram Niwas Verma (supra) has analysed various judgments including the previous judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra). The Court held that by virtue of Section 123(2), jurisdiction of the Commission is barred on account of the third proviso to Section 127B(1), in cases involving or concerning smuggling of gold or watches. This decision was carried in appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court; the Special Leave Petition was rejected by order dated 02.11.2015 [reported as Ram Niwas Verma vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2016 (331) ELT A 12....