By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 08, 2017: THE Settlement Commission in its order dated 30.05.2016 held –

++ Differential Duty in respect of 9 Bills of Entry (within five years) is settled at Rs.1,82,85,223/-. Apart from adjusting the said amount of Rs. 1,82,85,223/- from the amount of Rs.2,32,06,530/- paid by the Petitioners, the revenue is allowed to adjust the duty of Rs. 16,99,981.00 on the goods covered by Bill of Entry 710462 dated 3.4.2007, which was beyond the period of five years . After adjusting the said amounts of Rs.1,82,85,223/- and Rs. 16,99,981/= Rs. 1,99,85,204/- out of the amount of Rs.2,32,06,530/- paid by the Applicants, the balance Rs.32,21,326/- has been ordered to be appropriated towards interest liability . The Revenue was directed to calculate the balance due interest and communicate the same to the Applicants.

On 13.07.2016, the Petitioners received a letter from the Assistant Director, DRI giving calculation of the balance amount of Rs.28,72,835.41, which according to the DRI, is required to be paid.

The Petitioners filed an application before the CCESC for rectification of the mistake and for consequential relief and directions.

The Superintendent, O/o Settlement Commission informed that the Bench has not acceded to the Petitioners' request as prayed for.

Hence thepresent Petition.

After considering the facts involved and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court inter alia observed –

++ Law is settled that the Revenue Department/Authorities are not required to issue a demand beyond 5 years period under Section 28 of the Customs Act .

++ The Settlement Commission, while passing the final order on Petitioner's Application in para 2.2 referring to Chart even noted the four bills of entry beyond the period of 5 years including the issue in question. Therefore, having once noted, there was no question of appropriation of this amount by the SNC. The Petitioner's voluntary deposit, in no way, can bring the said amount within the purview of 5 years period so prescribed.

++ The bar of Section 127J [Order of settlement to be conclusive] needs to be considered from the point of the authority in question. But, in view of above observation on admitted position on record, as case is made out, we are inclined to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present case. The parties cannot be remedyless if case is made out.

++ As the Petitioner has no other alternative and efficacious remedy and as the writ petition against such order passed by the Settlement Commission in Settlement cases is maintainable, we are inclined to entertain the Petition and pass the order.

The High Court, therefore, quashed the order dated 30 May 2016 of the Settlement Commission to the extent as prayed and directed the CCESC to consider the prayer of the Petitioner.

The Writ Petition was allowed on the above terms .

(See 2017-TIOL-1504-HC-MUM-CUS)