IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1431 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Customs. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Jayesh Rasiklal Nandwana and another. ... Respondent. Pradeep S. Jetly with J.B.Mishra for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 23rd June 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent though served. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 6th February, 2008 passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai; whereby and whereunder an application made by the respondent was settled for the reasons recorded therein. One of the questions raised before the Settlement Commission related to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to settle the cases arising out of Baggage Rules, 1998 framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said contention was already dealt with by the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 27th November, 2007 passed while admitting the application for consideration on merits. The reasons recorded therein were followed by the Settlement Commission while passing final order dated 6th February, 2008 impugned in this petition. The same is dealt by the Settlement Commission in para-7 of the order reading as under: 7. The Bench has gone through the records of the case and has considered the contentions raised by both the parties. Bench observes that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to settle such cases has been dealt lucidly in the admission order and all the legal objections of the Revenue have been taken care of. There is no stay from the Supreme Court and in view of the amended provisions of Section 127B all such applications for settlement filed prior to 01.06.2007 have to be disposed off by 28.02.2008. Bench, therefore, proceeds to finally settles these applications. Bench after going through records of the case observes that the applicant had not declared these goods before the proper officer under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. Bench also observes that though the applicant has apparently misdeclared about the content of his baggage as such sought to evade paying duty the applicant had carried these ornaments at his family’s behest and does not appear to be a part of any organized smuggling of such goods. Revenue has not brought out anything to record to suggest that the applicant had to derive any pecuniary benefits by mis-declaration or by evasion of duty. Keeping all these facts in view and the fact that this was the first time he had been apprehended for mis-declaration Bench settles the case as under.....” 3. The very same issue is being raised in the present petition and very same submissions made before the Settlement Commission are being reiterated before us by Mr.Jetly, learned counsel for the Revenue. He, however, fairly states that the said issue has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Hoganas India Ltd., 2006 (199) ELT 8 (Bom) and subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Manish Kalvadia, 2008 (228) ELT 342 (Bom). He is also fair enough to point out that the validity of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hoganas India Ltd. (supra) is a subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court. However, the effect and operation of the judgment is not stayed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, since the issue has already been dealt with by this Court in Hoganas India Ltd. (supra), for the reasons recorded therein, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 5. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)