TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded in the SCN and cooperated with the Commission during the settlement proceedings. The entire amount of the admitted duty liability has also been paid by the applicant and he has also deposited the interest demanded thereon. The Revenue has not disputed the interest amount as worked out and paid by the applicant. Therefore, the Bench settles the case under Section 127C of the Act. The above immunities from penalty and prosecution to the applicant are granted under sub-section (l) of Section 127H of the Act subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. The immunities are granted only to the applicant who has approached the Settlement Commission. - Settlement Application No. 1030/2014 in File No. C-488/CUS/2014-SC(KB) - Final Order No. F-446/CUS/2014-SC(KB) - Dated:- 8-12-2014 - Shri Karan K. Sharma, Vice-Chairman and C. Dube, Member Shri Prashant Patankar, Consultant, for the Assessee. Shri K.K. Mishra, Appraiser and M.R. Kumar, SIO, for the Department. ORDER This order disposes of the Settlement Application No. 1030/2014 filed by Shri Shivaji Ramchandra Mohite of Parvati Kunj, 250/B, Nagala Park, Kolhapur, Maharasht ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of indemnity bond of ₹ 26 lakhs, legal undertaking to produce the vehicle till completion of the proceedings, legal undertaking not to challenge the make, model, year of manufacture, etc., in future proceedings, an undertaking of safe custody and further deposit of ₹ 9,83,283/- as security being equivalent to 50% of the declared CIF value of the said seized car. During the investigation a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- was deposited by the applicant under Customs Receipt No. 83, dated 24-4-2012 and Customs Receipt No. 50, dated 18-7-2013. 3.1 On completion of the investigation, the SCN was issued whereby the applicant was called upon to show cause under Section 124 before the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Customs House, 15/1 Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001 as to : (I) Why the subject vehicle namely 2006RHD Toyota Landcruiser VX 4.2 Diesel SUV with its Chassis No. as JTEHC05J104038448 and Engine No. 0303924, described as new in Bill of Entry No. 329411, dated 6-3-2007 filed on the basis of invoice No. PJ/01/0023/07, dated 8-1-2007 of M/s. Pride City General Trading L.L.C., Dubai, UAE, should not be held as a second-hand and/or used ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and the provisions of Para 2.1 and Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009? (VI) Why, for the reason that the said short-levy of duty on the imported Landcruiser (Diesel) S.U.V. under Bill of Entry No. 329411, dated 6-3-2007 has arisen out of what appears to be wilful misstatement made and suppression of facts done by or on behalf of the importer, and for keeping and using and in other manners dealing with such vehicle, knowing and having reason to believe that the said vehicle was liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on him? (VII) Why, for knowingly and/or intentionally making, signing or using and/or causing to be made, signed or used declaration and documents which are false and incorrect in material particulars for import, payment of duty and clearance of the vehicle under provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as aforesaid, penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on him? (VIII) Why, the amount of ₹ 9,83,283/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty-three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional liability towards duty in excess of ₹ 3 lakhs, the applicant prayed for allowing the case to be proceeded with and settled granting immunities from penalty, fine and prosecution since they fulfilled all the conditions required for settlement of the case. 5.1 Notice under Section 127C(1) of the Act was issued on 24-7-2014 requiring them to clarify, inter alia, on the following : i. It is not clear that in which head of account the amounts, namely ₹ 8,00,000/-, ₹ 12,00,000/- and ₹ 9,83,283/-, were deposited. ii. The authorisation letter for representing the case before the Hon ble Commission, given to one Patnakar Legal Combine, does not contain any date or full address of the applicant (Shri Shivaji Ramchandra Mohite) as well as the consultant (Patnakar Legal Combine). Moreover, there is no written acceptance on behalf of Patnakar Legal Combine in this matter. iii. The address of the applicant, as mentioned in the application (Parvati Kunj, 250/B, Nagala Park, Kolhapur, Maharashtra - 416 003) differs from that mentioned in the subject show cause notice and the relevant Bill of Entry (Mohite House, 240/B, General Thorat Marg, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Shri K.K. Mishra, Appraiser of the Commissioner of Customs (Port), submitted that although there is no direct evidence to show that the importer was in the knowledge that it was a used car, yet the circumstances of the importation like not buying the car from the original manufacturer or authorized dealer and paying a substantial amount of ₹ 7 lakhs over and above the value of the car to the supplier, Shri Jethani as is evident from the statement of Shri Mohite dated 11-4-2012 do indicate that the applicant had some inkling that this was not a totally above board transaction. 8.1 The Bench has carefully considered the material available on record and submissions made by the ld. Consultant of the applicant and the representatives of the Revenue in the course of hearing. 8.2 The Bench finds that the car Landcruiser (Diesel) SUV imported vide Bill of Entry Number 329411, dated 6-3-2007 is liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8.3 The Bench notes that the applicant, vide his statement dated 11-4-2012 in response to Question No. 7 had admitted making a payment of ₹ 7 lakhs by cash to the said supplier of the vehicle, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Prosecution - The Bench grants immunity to the applicant from prosecution under the Act and Rules made thereunder in so far as this case is concerned. Miscellaneous - On fulfilment of the above conditions, the bank guarantee/bond may be released as per law to the applicant. No part of this order relates to other noticees mentioned in the SCN as none of them have approached the Settlement Commission. 9. The above immunities from penalty and prosecution to the applicant are granted under sub-section (l) of Section 127H of the Act subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. The immunities are granted only to the applicant who has approached the Settlement Commission. 10. In terms of sub-section (8) of Section 127C this order of settlement shall be void if the Bench finds, at any time, that the subject settlement has been obtained by the applicant by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Attention of the applicant is also drawn to the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 127C of the Act. 11. The applicant, jurisdictional Commissioner and all concerned be informed accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
