IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26266 of 2005(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-9. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.SEVEN SEAS PETROLEUM PVT. LTD., 2C, TANGY APARTMENTS, NO.6, DR.P.V.CHERIAN CRESCENT ROAD, CHENNAI-600 105. ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR FOR R1 SRI.S.MURUGAPPAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27350 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC 26266/2005) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.45/2002 CUS. DT.22.4.2002. P2: TRUE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SIIB(I) JNCH, SHEVA DT.26.8.2003. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATIONNO.SA(c)64/2003 DT.23.6.2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.56/2003-CUS. DT.15.12.2003 PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. P5: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT.18.7.2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. P6: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.53/02 DT.20.8.2002 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER S.A.(c)64/2003 DT.24.6.2003 OF THE CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ADDL. BENCH, CHENNAI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): TRUE COPY OF CUSTOMS CIRCULAR NO.53/2002 DT.20.8.2002. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) Nos.26266 & 27350 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Standing Counsel appearing for the Department and counsel appearing for the respondent. Order under challenge is the one issued by Settlement Commission permitting settlement of liability on payment of full duty and interest at 10% thereon. Standing Counsel contended that this is not a case where the Settlement Commission should have shown the kind of leniency they did because respondent claimed credit of duty against forged Duty Entitlement Pass Books. However, forgery is not done by the respondent, but by the transferors of the Pass Books. Further, the Settlement Commission has protected the interest of the Revenue by ensuring payment of full duty and interest at 10%. I do not think this court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission in waiver of penalty and reduction of interest. Consequently these Writ Petitions are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms