Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t to settle only the dispute with regard to the seized consignment. Before the Commission the revenue had filed a report opposing the settlement for failure to disclose fully and truly all facts on the part of the petitioners particularly, in respect of the six earlier consignments. Therefore, the petitioners were on notice about the objection of the revenue and they could have led evidence in support yet the petitioner chose to contest the Commissioner's report only on the ground that the statement made by the coapplicant i.e. petitioner No.2 had been retracted and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had imported glass chatons on six earlier occasions. The order of the Settlement Commission is based on appreciatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... examined one container. On examination the container was seized on 29 September 2011. It was found that the petitioners had in the bill of entry dated 28 September 2011 covering the examined container declared that it had 439 carton of hair clips. However, on examination it was found that it had only 276 cartons of hair clips while remaining 163 cartons were found to contain glass chatons of different sizes. Consequently the aforesaid container containing 439 cartons were seized under the reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation. b) On further investigation and recording of statements the owner of goods one Musatafa Shaikh Haji Lal Mohammed admitted that in the past he had imported six consignments of cutlery alongwith g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty is payable in respect of the past six consignments on the ground that no evidence has been brought on record except retracted statement of the co applicant i.e. petitioner No.2. On 10 July 2012 the jurisdictional Commissioner filed his report opposing the application for settlement on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make full and true disclosure of its duty liability, particularly, their duty liability to the extent of Rs.4.20 crores in respect of earlier six consignments containing glass chatons which were smuggled into the country. It was alleged that glass chatons had been imported without having been manifested in the IGM or finding mention in the bill of landing and in the bill of entry. 4) The petitioners were h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Commission on 28 September 2012 they were able to obtain documents/inspection reports in respect of six earlier consignments carried out by the Customs department which would indicate that goods imported were only cutlery as declared in the bills of entry. Consequently, by letters dated 19 October 2012, 22 October 20123 and 31 October 2012 the petitioners requested the Commission to grant an additional hearing so as to provide further clarification in the matter. Therefore, all that the petitioner seeks now is that the impugned order be set aside and the Commission be directed to consider further documents which are now in their possession before deciding upon the petitioners' application for settlement. 7) As against the above, Mr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents. Therefore, the petitioners were on notice about the objection of the revenue and they could have led evidence in support yet the petitioner chose to contest the Commissioner's report only on the ground that the statement made by the coapplicant i.e. petitioner No.2 had been retracted and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had imported glass chatons on six earlier occasions. The proceedings before the Commission is not an adjudicating proceedings where it is for the other side to prove its case. In settlement proceedings a party seeks to end the dispute and is meant for a person who is sorry about his conduct and wants to make amends. It is not an alternative adjudicating forum. A person approaching the Sett .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates