Delhi High Court
Directorate Of Revenue ... vs M.I. Enterprises & Ors. on 16 October, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.10.2015
+ W.P.(C) 9783/2015 & CM No.23515/2015 (stay)
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE & ANR.
.... Petitioners
versus
M.I. ENTERPRISES & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for petitioners.
For the Respondents : Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the final order No.F-2446-
48/CUS/15-SC (PB) issued by the Customs and Central Excise
Settlement Commission, New Delhi on 30.06.2015 whereby the
applications for settlement being Nos.4620/2015 & 4622/2015 have been
disposed of. The issue relates to the import of Christmas Lights, LED
Bulbs, Decoration Lamps, etc. The allegations against the respondents
were that they had made this importation contrary to the provisions of
Customs Act, 1962 as also the Foreign Trade Development & Regulation
Act, 1992. It is also the case that there was misuse of the IE Code. A
common show cause notice dated 09.01.2015 was issued by the
Additional Director of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi.
2. At that stage, the respondents moved the aforesaid applications for
settlement before the Settlement Commission. The settlement
applications were allowed to be proceeded with and, ultimately, resulted
in the impugned final order. The Settlement Commission observed and
held as under:-
"15. In the instant case also, mis-use of IE code is
a charge in the SCN along with undervaluation.
As such, the above observations of the Delhi High
Court in the Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs Delhi-IV Vs. Achiever International is
squarely applicable. The imported goods despite
being prohibited goods under section 2(33) can be
released on the basis of redemption fine in terms
of Section 125 of the Customs Act. The duty
liability which arises on the application of Section
125, has been accepted and discharged by the
applicant. This computation of quantum of duty
has not been disputed by the Revenue. The Bench
observes that the applicant has made true and full
disclosure of their duty liability and cooperated in
the proceedings before the Commission. They
have also deposited entire amount of duty
demanded in the SCN.
16. So far as role of co-applicant 1 and 2 is
concerned, it is clear from the investigations that
the imported goods belonged to them and that
they used the IE code of the applicant to import
goods contrary to the provisions of the Act. The
act of undervaluing the goods has also been
accepted by them. Undervaluation is a conscious
exercise and their culpability is thereby
established. In fine, the co- applicants are found to
be the main perpetrator of the offence under the
Customs Act.
17. In view of the above and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Bench hereby
settles the case under section 127C (5) of the Act
on the following terms and conditions:
Assessable Value: The assessable value of the
imported goods is re-determined as
Rs.59,33,372/- in terms of Section 14 of the Act
read with Rule 9 of the Custom Valuation Rules.
Customs Duty: The Customs Duty in this case is
settled at Rs.17,06,406/- (Rupees seventeen lakh
six thousand four hundred six only) against the
applicant. An amount of Rs.17,06,406/- deposited
by the applicant is ordered to be appropriated
towards the settled amount of duty. Nothing
further remains to be paid on this Count.
Fine: A fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-( Rupees five lakh
only) is imposed in lieu of confiscation of the
seized goods.
Penalty: Taking into account the facts and
circumstance of the case, the Bench imposes a
penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the applicant and Rs
1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) each on the co-
applicant 1 and 2, under the provisions invoked in
the SCN and grants him immunity from penalty in
excess of the above amount.
Upon payment of these amounts, the seized goods
shall be returned to the applicant within 15 days.
Prosecution: The Bench grants immunity to the
applicant from prosecution under the Act and
Rules framed there under as applicable in so far as
this case is concerned.
18. The above immunities to the applicant is
granted under Section 127H(I) of the Act. Their
attention is also drawn to the provisions of sub-
section (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid.
19. This order shall be void and immunities
withdrawn if the Bench finds, at any time, that the
applicants had concealed any particular, material
to the settlement or had given false evidence or
had obtained this order by fraud or mis-
representation of facts.
20. A copy of this order is given to the applicant
herein and to the jurisdictional Commissioner for
their use in the implementation of the order. No
one should use this order in any other manner or
for any other purpose without the written
permission of the Commission."
3. Mr Satish Aggarwala appearing for the petitioner/Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence contends that the Settlement Commission has taken
a very lenient view in imposing the fines and penalties. According to
him, in a case of this nature, the fines should have been much higher as
also the penalty amount. We have also heard the learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Settlement
Commission are not adjudicatory but are by way of settlement. This
Court does not sit in appeal over the settlement orders passed by the
Settlement Commission. It is, therefore, not open to a party to make a
grievance with regard to an adjudicatory process when the same is
foreign to the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. We do not
agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that any interference with
the impugned order is called for.
5. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
OCTOBER 16, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
