1994 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM) under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act.
2. Allegations of fraudulent intention and fictitious firms.
3. Legality of the import and compliance with the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
4. Applicability of previous judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM) under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act:
The appellants sought to amend the IGM to substitute their name as the consignee instead of M/s. Marvel Impex Pvt. Ltd. The Asstt. Collector refused this amendment under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, stating that the manifest was neither incorrect nor incomplete. The manifest correctly listed M/s. Marvel Impex Pvt. Ltd. as the consignee based on the Bill of Lading (B/L) at the time of filing. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that amendment is permissible only if the manifest is incorrect or incomplete and there is no fraudulent intention.

2. Allegations of fraudulent intention and fictitious firms:
The Asstt. Collector found M/s. Marvel Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Star Wires & Cable Industries to be fictitious firms linked to the Didwania Group, a group known for fraudulent activities. The Tribunal noted that the supplier, M/s. Donal McCarthy, was also associated with the Didwania Group. The appellants failed to provide evidence rebutting these findings. The Tribunal concluded that the supplier's attempt to transfer the goods to the appellants was an afterthought to circumvent ongoing investigations, indicating a fraudulent intention.

3. Legality of the import and compliance with the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992:
The Tribunal highlighted that M/s. Marvel Impex Pvt. Ltd. did not have an Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) number, making the import unauthorized under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. This contravention also attracts provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, making the goods liable for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized that only recognized importers with an IEC number can legally import goods.

4. Applicability of previous judicial decisions:
The appellants cited the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Savitri Electronics Co. and the Supreme Court's decision in Sampat Raj Dugar to support their case. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that in Sampat Raj Dugar, the Supreme Court explicitly stated they were not considering cases where the import was contrary to law. The Tribunal found the Madras High Court's decision in J.B. Trading Corporation more applicable, where it was held that substituting the importer to circumvent legal proceedings is unacceptable. The Tribunal also referenced the South Regional Bench's decision in J.B. Trading Corporation, which supported the view that unauthorized imports cannot be legalized by amending the manifest.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Asstt. Collector's decision to refuse the amendment of the IGM. The Tribunal found that the import was unauthorized due to the lack of an IEC number and that there was a fraudulent intention in attempting to amend the manifest. The interim order restraining the confiscation/disposal of goods was vacated.