9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 170 - AT - CustomsUsing IEC of some other person for importing the goods - stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty u/s 112 and 114AA - Held that - As decided in Hamid Fahim Ansari vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva 2009 (5) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that imports done in the name of petitioner but for some other person, if the petitioner has obtained IEC by misrepresenting the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Director General of Foreign Trade, it is for that body to take action. In the result, the Hon ble High Court held that using of IEC of some other person is not an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the appellant has not violated the provisions of Customs Act. Penalty deleted - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Application for stay and Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Validity of using IEC of another person for importing goods. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal along with applications for stay and Condonation of Delay. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the judge, considering the reasons provided in the affidavit as satisfactory. The Condonation of Delay application was allowed. 2. The stay application sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for using the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) of another person for importing goods. After hearing both parties, the judge found the issue to be narrow. The judge granted waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned dues and proceeded to consider and dispose of the appeal itself. 3. The judgment referenced the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva, where the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that using the IEC of another person for imports, even if the petitioner obtained it by misrepresentation, does not constitute an offense under the Customs Act, 1962. The court ruled that as long as the petitioner has a valid IEC number and has paid duty, they are entitled to the release of goods. Consequently, the appellant, who used another person's IEC, did not violate the Customs Act, and the penalty was deemed not imposable on the appellant. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The stay application was also disposed of.
|
