UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAI IMPEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Revenue challenging two orders passed by the Settlement Commission viz; order dated 20/23rd February, 2001 admitting the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and the order dated 24th October, 2001 rejecting the Review Application filed by the Petitioners.

(2.) IN the present case, the Respondent No. 1 had imported Damar Batu (agricultural product) and had filed Bill of Entry on 5th October, 1999 for clearance of the goods as 'damar Batu'. The Customs authorities on examination of the said goods found that the consignment contained Ball Bearings worth Rs. 14,22,178/- CIF and Damar Batu valued at Rs. 57,074/ -. Further investigation carried out by Customs Officers revealed that in the past using the same modus operandi, the Respondent No. 1 had clandestenly cleared several consignments of Ball Bearing without payment of duty. Based on the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 29th March, 2000 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 calling upon them to show cause as to why imported goods should not be confiscated and duty amounting to Rs. 2,45,83,219/- in respect of earlier consignments should not be recovered and personal penalty should not be levied upon the Petitioners.

(3.) BEFORE the said Show Cause Notice could be adjudicated upon, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application on 1-11-2000 before the Settlement Commission under Section 127b of the Customs Act. On 9th November, 2000 the Settlement Commission forwarded a copy of the said application to the Customs authorities seeking their comment in the matter. On 5th December, 2000, a report was submitted by the Customs Authorities, inter alia, stating therein that the case of the Respondent No. 1 does not fall within the scope of consideration by the Settlement Commission. However, by the impugned order dated 20/23rd February, 2001 the Commission allowed the application of Respondent No. 1 to be proceeded with under Section 127c (1) of the Customs Act, and the Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the admitted liability of Rs. 67,56,056/- in four equal instalments. From the said order, it is apparent that although the issue of jurisdiction was raised in their comments, the same was not canvassed by the Revenue at the time of the admission of the application filed by the Respondent No. 1.