Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2006 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 134 - HC - CustomsSettlement Commission - Jurisdiction to to entertain the application u/s 127B - misdeclaration Or misclassification - Scope of the provisions unduly enlarged - HELD THAT:- The provision cannot be interpreted to enlarge the scope unduly particularly to provide protection under this Chapter even to cases of smugglers and habitual offenders. If it is to be so interpreted, even as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the provisions of Chapter X1VA can be utilized by such unscrupulous elements than any bona fide persons claiming benefit under such provisions. In this regard, I respectfully agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court that Chapter XIVA cannot be extended to cases of misdeclaration also. If it was a misdeclaration and not a case of misclassification, the very provisions of Section 127B are not attracted and the Settlement Commission could not have entertained the application. One another affirming provision is the third proviso, which seeks to expressly exclude from the purview of the Settlement Commission applications in respect of goods to which Section 123 applies, in the sense, the goods which are notified for the purpose of raising initial presumption on the possessor that the goods are smuggled goods unless the person in possession of the same is in a position to establish the proper import of the goods into the country. While the Settlement Commission itself has described the respondent as a smuggler and thought it fit to levy penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. that act itself should have cautioned the Settlement Commission not to entertain the application in the light of the third proviso to Section 127B of the Act and the Settlement Commission should have rejected the application relegating the respondent to workout his remedy in accordance with the normal course provided under the Act. As I am of the view that the Settlement Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application of the nature filed by the respondent before it, particularly application under Section 127B of the Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the impugned order. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Chennai is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari Rule issued and made absolute.
|