9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Brief Facts: The petitioner herein the broker of DFRC licence. The petitioner is dealing with the transferable licenses for import of goods. The petitioner in the course of his business arranged for import of licenses to M/s.Langro Chemie India Pvt Ltd under the DFRC scheme for import of leather chemicals. The respondent issued Show Cause notice against the petitioner, M/s.Langro Chemie India P. Ltd and M/s.KMK Shipping and Clearing Pvt. Ltd. , on 12.09.2002. The relevant portion of the show cause notice reads as follows: "14. Therefore, M/s.LCIPL are hereby required to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on 08.09.2003, wherein the Settlement Commission, by an order dated 25.11.2003 rejected the application filed by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is not allowed to be proceeded within terms of sub section (1) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962, for non compliance with the conditions of sub Section (1) of Section 127B,ibid. The same is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Onkar S.Kanwar reported in 2002 (145)E.L.T. 266 (S.C.). The relevant paragraph reads as under: "We have heard the parties. In our view, a reading of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as follows:- "The bench observes that the applicant has made a true and full disclosure of all the facts relating to the imported goods. Besides, he has also submitted details of post-importation services/repairs undertaken by him and expenditure incurred on servicing, supply of spare parts, incidental charges, etc., which were not included in the original import value of the goods. The remittances were also made by him including service charges from India to Singapore through banking channels. His remittance transactions are thus licit transactions." Therefore, it is contended that when the importer has now got a clean chit from the settlement commission, the petitioner who is only a broker, cannot be penalised. 27. In Paragraphs 25 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
