2023 (5) TMI 455 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 114 (iii) of the Customs Act 1962 and u/s 114 AA of the Act - Global container carrier (shipping line) and provides liner shipping services worldwide. - Seeking relief on the ground that the importers/exporters have been granted immunity from prosecution fine and penalty - Appellant urges that a settlement order ends the dispute not only with respect to the applicant before the Commission but also qua-other co-noticees. - HELD THAT - The dispute against the present appellant (co-noticee) stands settled in view of the aforementioned rulings of the High Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court. In a recent decision the Hon ble Madras High Court in A.M. AHAMED CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. J.M. IQBAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE HON BLE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2022 (11) TMI 639 - MADRAS HIGH COURT under similar facts and circumstances where show cause notice was issued to the importer and the CHA the importer had settled the dispute before the Settlement Commission and paid the Additional Duty of Customs and was granted immunity from prosecution fine and penalty. Following the rulings of the Apex Court and the Hon ble Madras High Court as aforementioned this appeal is allowed and it is held that the impugned order is bad. The appellant is also entitled to immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to the main noticee - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this appeal is whether the penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 114 AA of the Act have been rightly imposed.

Summary:
The appellant, a global container carrier, was made a co-noticee in a show cause notice along with others. While the main noticee and one co-noticee settled with the Settlement Commission, penalty was imposed on the appellant and two other co-noticees. The appellant argued that the settlement order should end the dispute for all co-noticees. The Tribunal considered relevant rulings and found that the dispute against the appellant stands settled based on judicial precedents. Referring to a recent decision, the Tribunal highlighted that once an order of settlement is passed, the entire dispute comes to an end, and it would be discriminatory to continue proceedings against co-noticees. Citing the rulings of the Apex Court and the Madras High Court, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting immunity to the appellant as per the Settlement Commission's decision.

Judgment:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellant and other co-noticees was not valid. The appellant was entitled to the immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to the main noticee. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential benefits in accordance with the law.