2013 (4) TMI 541 - AT - Customs

Non procuring the IEC number - assessee imported a consignment of Canvas Office bags intended to be distributed to the employees of the newly opened branch office - violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 order of the original authority stated to be a case of import not in commercial quantity and not for commercial purpose. - Held that - Apparently, there is a violation in not taking an IE code before import of the goods. Original authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Even before the Tribunal the relevant details as to the number of bags and the value of import has not been furnished. Bill of entry copy is also not enclosed. Apparently, the imported goods have been subjected to assessment and duty stands collected. Merely because IE code was not there, to treat the said goods as prohibited would be only on a technical ground and could not be treated as a prohibition in the real sense of the term. As the goods are apparently cleared and not available for seizure, the question of confiscating them at this stage also does not arise. There is no valid ground adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has upheld the order of the original authority penalizing the respondent under Section 117 for violation of importing without IE code.

Summary

Issues: Importation without Importer/Exporter Code (IEC) and confiscation of goods.

Importation without IEC:
The case involves an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the importation of Canvas Office bags without the requisite IEC number. The original authority imposed a penalty for this violation, considering it a breach of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The department contended that the imported goods should be liable for confiscation as well, as importation without an IE code was deemed import of prohibited goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, emphasizing the lack of detailed information on the imported goods and ruling that they did not qualify as 'prohibited goods' under the Customs Act.

Confiscation of Goods:
During the appeal before the Tribunal, it was noted that essential details such as the number of bags and the import value were not provided, and the bill of entry copy was missing. The Tribunal observed that the import was not for commercial purposes and was not in commercial quantity. While a penalty was imposed by the original authority under Section 117 of the Customs Act, it was highlighted that the goods had already undergone assessment and duty payment. The Tribunal reasoned that treating the goods as 'prohibited' solely due to the absence of an IE code would be a technicality and not a valid ground for confiscation since the goods had been cleared and were not available for seizure. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to penalize the respondent for importing without an IE code and rejected the appeal by the department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the violation of importing goods without the required IEC number and the subsequent penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The decision underscored that the absence of an IE code did not warrant confiscation of the goods, especially when they had already been assessed and duty had been paid. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rulings and rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing the technical nature of the violation and the lack of grounds for confiscation at that stage.