O R D E R

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a holder of an Import Export Code, regularly importing chemicals. Action was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the ground that there was misclassification of the goods by the petitioner and a consignment imported through Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai was seized.

2. Show cause notice dated 25.06.2018 was issued demanding duties in respect of consignments imported at Nhava Sheva Port at Mumbai as well as Chennai port. The show cause notice covered the period June, 2014 to July, 2017 and the demands raised are as follows:

3. Even prior to the issuance of show cause notice, a demand notice had been issued on 30.03.3018 in respect of 17 bills of entry for the period 21.05.2016 to 17.02.2017. Though the aforesaid period stood telescoped in the period dealt with under the show cause notice, the 17 bills of entry did not form part of the show cause notice issued.

4. The petitioner has settled the demand under demand notice dated

30.03.2018 belatedly with interest, on 14.08.2020. A corrigendum dated 05.12.2018 had been issued to the demand notice making certain modifications to demand notice dated 30.03.2018. As far as demand notice is concerned, it attained finality with the settlement of the duty and interest demanded.

5. To be noted, that demand notice dated 30.03.2018 had also proposed, apart from re-classification and interest, confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112(a)/114(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act').

6. Seperately, the petitioner filed an application before the Customs,

https://www.mhcC.tne.gnovt.rina/juld iEs xcise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (in short 'Settlement

Commission') on 04.07.2019 even prior to the settlement of the demand under demand notice dated 30.08.2018 read with corrigendum dated 05.12.2018. In that settlement application, a conscious choice was made to address only the transactions and demand covered under the show cause notice dated 25.06.2018. The transactions and demand relating to the 17 bills of entry that were the subject matter of demand notice and Corrigendum did not form part of the application.

7. Proceedings continued before the Settlement Commission in accordance with Chapter XIV-A of the Act relating to 'settlement of cases'. The Settlement Commission passed a final order on 07.07.2020 under Section 127C of the Act. The matter was settled imposing a differential duty along with interest.

8. The petitioner was also permitted, on payment of a redemption fine, to redeem the goods confiscated. As far as penalty is concerned, the Bench imposed penalty of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- granting immunity to the petitioner of penalty in excess of the aforesaid amount.

9. The petitioner was directed to pay the penalty within 30 days from date of receipt of the order and report compliance. Subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty within 30 days as granted, the petitioner as well as co-applicants were granted immunity from prosecution and were also permitted to receive back the PD bond and bank guarantee that had been executed pending application.

10. The matter ended there as far as the transactions covered by show cause notice dated 25.06.2018 were concerned. While this is so, the petitioner has filed an application on 14.08.2020 on the heels of order dated 07.07.2020 and within a month from receiving the same, addressing the 17 transactions covered under demand notice dated 30.03.2018. That application was styled as a fresh application in terms of Rule 3 of the Customs (Settlement of cases)

Rules, 2007 (in short 'Rules').

11. Inter alia, they refer to the earlier settlement application filed by them for the period 21.05.2016 and 15.0