TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Notification No. 98/2009-Cus., dated 11-9-2009 should not be denied to the petitioner. The relevant portions of the Show Cause Notice are reproduced below :- 21. In view of the foregoing, M/s. Millions Fashion, No. 79, Coral Merchant Street, Mannady, Chennai-1, the importer, is hereby called upon to show cause within 30 days of receipt of this notice, to the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) at Custom House, Chennai-1, as to why : (a) In respect of the Bill of Entry No. 4566636, dated 6-9-2011 : (i) The declared value of Rs. 4,91,541/- for the import of 19385.5 meters of rayon/poly-cot woven printed fabrics imported should not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and re-determined as Rs. 10,32,711/- under Rule 3 of the CVR, 2007; (ii) The 15279.2 meters of rayon woven printed fabrics and 4106.3 meters of poly-cot printed fabrics, actually imported vide the above said Bill of Entry, should not be classified under CTH 5516 14 90 and 5513 41 00 respectively and as corroborated by the Textile Committee Reports. (iii) The benefit of Customs Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 8957.20 meters of 53.8% cotton + 46.2% poly woven fabrics of YODC should not be redetermined at Rs. 6,78,383/- and duty of Rs. 3,35,852.06/- should not be collected from them. (v) 1528.60 meters of polyester fabrics should not be determined at Rs. 100360/- and duty of Rs. 3,60,983.04/- should not be collected from them. (vi) 1150.90 meters of cotton fabrics of higher GSM should not be re-determined are Rs. 69,965/- and duty of Rs. 84640.08/- should not be collected from them. (vii) the above 49042.5 meters of cotton/polyester/poly-cot woven fabrics, totally valued at Rs. 35,78,945/- and imported vide the aforesaid B/E No. 4990516/21-10-2011, should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of description, quantity and value of the goods; (d) In respect of Bill of Entry No. 5987437, dated 13-2-2012 : (i) The declared value of Rs. 29,13,175/- for the import of 54112 meters of various different types of imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5987437/13-2-2012 should not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, (g) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for rendering the goods imported vide the aforesaid four Bills of Entry namely 4990516, dated 21-10-2011, 4566636, dated 6-9-2011, 4547455, dated 5-9-2011 and 5987437, dated 13-2-2012 and the goods imported and cleared vide the 21 past Bills of Entry liable to confiscation under 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, (h) Penalty should not be imposed, under Section 114A for willful misstatement or suppression of facts in respect of the above said Bills of entry, (i) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for furnishing forged/fabricated documents to clear the goods in the aforesaid Bills of Entry, (j) The Bank Gurantee of Rs. 1 Crores furnished by the importer should not be enforced to appropriate the duty so demanded under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 as above, and (k) The excess duty of Rs. 1,81,427/- paid in excess at the time of provisional assessment in respect of the Bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the goods so as to match with the description of the goods in the import licences. 6.7 Thus, it is seen from the discussion supra, the applicant instead of admitting duty liability, has been shifting his stand every time so that no consensus has been arrived at between the applicant and the Revenue. 7. As far as the preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission referred to the decision of the Settlement Commission in its order in In Re : Idris Y. Porbunderwala, 2005 (186) E.L.T. 356 (Sett. Comm.), wherein, in paragraph No. 28(a), the issue was answered as follows :- 28. From the aforesaid discussions and the cases cited and discussed above, we conclude that invocability of the provisions of Section 123 is an essential ingredient to determine the applicability of the said section to the seized goods so as to decide whether the mischief of the third proviso to sub-section (1) of the Section 127B of the Act would come into play. The issues referred to Special Bench for decision can be answered as below :- (a) Whether applications, per se, are barred in relation to goods which are listed under sub-section (2) of Section 123 or ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be made in relation to gold. This case clearly pertains to gold. The respondent made an application, nevertheless, to the Settlement Commission which has entertained the same and has also rejected the plea raised by the Revenue that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain such an application. We agree with the submission made by the Learned Counsel 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) E.L.T. 32 (Del.) as also a subsequent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Komal Jain v. Union of India : 2014 (304) E.L.T. 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, observed that the issue with regard to the applicability of Section 123 of the Act by way of the....