Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Settlement Commission's Interest Order Under Customs Act. Settlement Commission Directed Interest Under Section 28AB After Amendment Removed Power to Grant Immunity; Court Holds Mandatory Interest and No Jurisdiction to Waive.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerned the power of the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from interest under the Customs Act, 1962 after its amendment in 2007. Frontier Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., an importer, faced a show cause notice for short-levied duty of Rs.93.75 lakhs. Prior to the notice, it had twice attempted to approach the Settlement Commission, but those applications were rejected because no show cause notice had been issued. After the show cause notice was issued on 24 January 2008, the petitioner filed a valid application before the Settlement Commission. By order dated 27 April 2009, the Commission directed payment of the duty and granted immunity from penalty exceeding Rs.3 lakhs and from prosecution, but did not address interest. The Union of India challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which on 19 March 2010 directed the Commission to reconsider the issue of interest. On reconsideration, the Commission, by order dated 24 March 2011, held that interest was payable under Section 28AB and that after the 2007 amendment, it could not grant immunity from interest. The petitioner challenged that order. The core legal issue was whether the amended Section 127H, which removed the Commission's power to waive interest, applied to its case. The petitioner argued that the relevant events predated the amendment and that a pre-existing right of appeal could not be taken away, citing Hoosein Kasam Dada. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission could only be invoked after a show cause notice, which in this case was issued after the amendment came into force. Therefore, the proceedings were governed by the amended law, under which the Commission had no power to grant immunity from interest. The Court emphasised that interest under Section 28AB is mandatory. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Commission's interest order was upheld. The Court granted four weeks' time for compliance and made no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Customs Law - Settlement Commission - Immunity from Interest - Customs Act, 1962, Sections 127H, 28AB - The Settlement Commission's order directing payment of interest was challenged on the ground that events occurred before the 2007 amendment. The Court held that the liability to pay interest under Section 28AB is mandatory and the amended Section 127H removes the Commission's power to grant immunity from interest. As the application was filed after the amendment came into force, the Commission had no jurisdiction to waive interest. Held that no error in the Commission's order. (Paras 2-3)

B) Customs Law - Settlement Commission - Invocation of Jurisdiction - Customs Act, 1962, Section 127B - The Court noted that under Section 127B, an application to Settlement Commission can be made only after a show cause notice is issued. Since the show cause notice in the present case was issued after the amendment to Section 127H, the proceedings were governed by the amended provision, and the Commission could not grant immunity from interest. (Para 3)

C) Statutory Interpretation - Prospective Amendment - Right of Appeal - Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh distinguished - The Court rejected the argument based on the Supreme Court decision regarding pre-existing right of appeal, holding that the present case involved the initiation of proceedings after the amendment, thus the amended law applied and no retrospective effect was needed. Held that the Commission's order was valid. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to grant immunity from payment of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 after the amendment to Section 127H effective from 1 June 2007?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. The Settlement Commission's order directing payment of interest was upheld. Time for compliance extended by four weeks. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to grant immunity or waiver from statutory liability to pay interest after amendment of Section 127H
  • liability to pay interest under Section 28AB is mandatory
  • jurisdiction of Settlement Commission can be invoked only after show cause notice
  • amended provision applies if application is filed after amendment effective date
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (01) 32

Writ Petition No. 1818 of 2012

2013-01-23

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A.A. Sayed

2013:BHC-OS:844-DB

Mr. Ashok Singh for Petitioner, Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for Respondents

Frontier Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Settlement Commission directing payment of interest under the Customs Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the Settlement Commission's order dated 24 March 2011 and exemption from payment of interest.

Filing Reason

The Settlement Commission, upon reconsideration as directed by the High Court in an earlier writ, held that interest under Section 28AB is mandatory and that the Commission has no power to grant immunity from interest after the 2007 amendment.

Previous Decisions

Earlier, the Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty and prosecution but not interest; High Court directed reconsideration of interest; Commission then ordered interest; and the petitioner challenged that order. The Union of India had earlier filed a writ which was allowed directing reconsideration.

Issues

Whether the Settlement Commission had jurisdiction to grant immunity from payment of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act after the amendment to Section 127H effective from 1 June 2007?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that events transpired before the amendment, so the amended provision should not apply; that the Supreme Court judgment in Hoosein Kasam Dada supports that a pre-existing right of appeal cannot be destroyed by amendment. Respondent argued that the application was filed after the amendment came into force, thus the amended provisions apply and the Commission cannot grant immunity from interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to Section 127H of the Customs Act, effective from 1 June 2007, removed the power of the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from payment of interest. The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission can only be invoked after issuance of a show cause notice. Since the application was filed after the amendment, the proceedings are governed by the amended law, and the Commission has no jurisdiction to waive interest. The liability to pay interest under Section 28AB is mandatory. The Supreme Court decision in Hoosein Kasam Dada regarding pre-existing right of appeal is inapplicable because the initiation of proceedings occurred after the amendment.

Judgment Excerpts

The Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to grant an immunity or a waiver from the statutory liability to pay interest. The liability to pay interest on delayed payment of duty under section 28AB is mandatory where any duty has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. (Para 3) The judgment of the Supreme Court holds that a pre-existing right of appeal is not destroyed by an amendment, if the amendment is not made retrospective by express words or necessary intendment. In the present case, it was only upon the issuance of the notice to show cause that the provisions of Section 127B could have been and were validly invoked. The proceeding was, therefore, governed by the amended provisions of Section 127H under which the Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to grant waiver or immunity from the statutory liability to pay interest. (Para 4)

Procedural History

Initially, petitioner filed application before Settlement Commission prior to show cause notice; rejected on 9 January 2007. Second application on 29 May 2007 rejected on 9 October 2007. Show cause notice issued on 24 January 2008 for Rs.93.75 lakhs duty. Petitioner moved Settlement Commission again (valid application) and on 27 April 2009, Commission directed payment of duty and granted immunity from penalty in excess of Rs.3.00 lakhs and from prosecution, but not interest. Union of India filed writ petition; High Court on 19 March 2010 allowed it and directed reconsideration of interest. Settlement Commission, by order dated 24 March 2011, directed payment of interest under Section 28AB. Petitioner filed present writ petition challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Customs Act, 1962: 28AB, 127B, 127C(5), 127H
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition Challenging Reservation Direction for Headmaster Cadre with Two Posts — Reservation Not Applicable Where Cadre Strength Is Three or Less Under Maharashtra Education Rules.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Settlement Commission's Interest Order Under Customs Act. Settlement Commission Directed Interest Under Section 28AB After Amendment Removed Power to Grant Immunity; Court Holds Mandatory Interest and...