Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 317 - DELHI HIGH COURTJurisdiction on the Settlement Commission - Confiscation of Goods – Interest and Penalty – the applicant moved the Settlement Commission under Section 127(1) – Held that:- Provisions relating to baggage fall under Chapter 11 of the Customs Act, the provisions relating to confiscation - which were invoked in the present case were general in nature and apply to all classes of imports - made either where goods are sought to be cleared under Chapter 7 or under Chapter 6 as in the present case. This observation of the Court is strengthened by the fact that Section 127(B) itself enumerates the kinds of cases which cannot be entertained by the Commission, for instance listed in third proviso of Section 127(B)(i) - Having regard to these and the observations of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Customs & Excise Settlement Commission [2007 (10) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT MADRAS ] - the argument of the Revenue on this aspect lacks in merit. In the absence of filing of bill of entry, the application filed was not maintainable was wholly misconceived – Held that:- The application filed was maintainable it was not open to the revenue to contend that the Settlement Commission was in error in entertaining the application – the Commission noticed that baggage is a specific item under Chapter heading 98.03 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - It rested its conclusion on the fact that the duty computed by the Revenue in the show cause notice itself was 35% ad valorem which related to baggage - Idris Y. Porbunderwala [2005 (6) TMI 302 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,]. On a careful reading of Sections 127(A) and 127(B) the Revenue’s contention that since the applicant had not filed bill of entry or that the case was one relating to baggage and therefore did not involve short levy or non-levy was without force - The provisions that confer jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission cannot be construed as narrowly as it sought to be urged by the Revenue - If parliamentary intention was to exclude adjudication by Customs Authorities in respect of baggage claim, from the purview of the Commission’s jurisdiction, surely such intention would have been more clearly manifested like in the case of 3 proviso of Section 127(B)(i) – petition allowed – Decided in favor of assesse.
|