ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. VINEY JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 20542/2014

(2.) The main point urged by Mr Satish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, is that the Settlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent inasmuch as the respondent did not comply with the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 127B of the said Act. Section 127B, to the extent relevant, is reproduced herein below:-

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondent had arrived at IGI Airport from Hongkong by flight No.CX-695 on 10.02.2013. It is stated that while he was trying to cross the green channel near the exit gate of the arrival hall, a custom officer intercepted him and searched the checked in baggage and found that it contained 738 pieces of offset printing heads. As the respondent could not produce any documentary evidence for having legal possession of the said goods in a commercial quantity in order to lawfully import the same, the said goods were seized by the custom officers under the provisions of the said Act on the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into India and were liable to confiscation. The customs portion of the disembarkation slip was also recovered. An investigation was carried out and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 06.08.2013. During the pendency of the show cause proceedings, the respondent moved the application under Section 127B of the Customs Act for settlement of the case on 18.09.2013.