Page 325 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 971
Seizure (Contd.)
invoked, for not falling within its purview - Seizure notice quashed -
Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 — Om Sai Trading Company v. Union of India
(Pat.) ......................................... 542
— of Indian currency under FERA, confiscation and penalty not sustainable
due to lack of evidence - See under PENALTY .................. 701
— under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, inter alia, by DRI, scope of - See
under SEARCH AND SEIZURE .......................... 673
Seizure order - Reason to believe - Mere suspicion cannot be reason
sufficient enough to derive conclusion forming belief ‘for reason to
believe.’ — J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ..................... 237
— Reason to believe - Supplementing reasons for formation of ‘reason to
believe’ through affidavit of authority - HELD : When statutory
functionary makes order based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh
reasons in shape of affidavit or otherwise, for bad order, with passage of
time, and supplementing reasons would become good, which is not how
authorities required to function, more so, in case of confiscatory
legislation — J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) .................... 237
Self-exculpatory statement without corroboration is not sufficient evidence
to establish misdeclaration - See under MISDECLARATION .......... 888
Served From India Scheme (SFIS), scope of clause 3.6.4.2 of Foreign Trade
Policy 2004-2009 - See under FTP 2004-2009 ................... 625
Service of Show Cause Notice on unauthorized person is not effective
service - See under SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ................... 865
Settlement application - Drawback availed in excess and wrongly,
settlement application maintainable - See under DEMAND .......... 771
— Smuggling of cigarettes - Goods notified after import but prior to filing
application - Maintainability of application - Instant case, cigarettes were
imported in Feb./April, 2016, seized by DRI in April, 2016, show cause
notice issued in April, 2017 and Settlement Applications filed in
Aug./Dec., 2017 - Meanwhile in July, 2016, said goods were notified
under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD : Settlement Commission
clearly erred in entertaining applications in Aug./Dec., 2017 on ground
that at time of import of goods, these were not notified under Section 123
ibid and hence bar under third proviso of Section 127B ibid was not
applicable - Both on date of issuing show cause notice and on date of
filing of applications, cigarettes had become a notified item - Bar under
Section 127B ibid is enforceable on ‘date when application was made’ and
not from date of import - Since, applications in this case were made after
goods had been notified ibid, Settlement Commission had no power,
jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide Settlement Application
- Impugned order set aside - Section 127 of Customs Act, 1962 - Article
226 of Constitution of India — Principal Additional Director General, DRI v.
Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (Del.) ............ 840
Settlement Commission - Admission - Adjudication order issued when
application for settlement already filed with Bench - Order-in-Original
passed only after written request made by applicant company stating
that application filed before Settlement Commission at Chennai for
release of pending drawback - Thus, adjudication order became effective
subsequent to filing of application with Settlement Commission -
Applicant complied with requirement of Provisions under Section
127A(b) of Customs Act, 1962 since proceedings fall with definition of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  325