9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s. Silfer Enterprises (Silfer for short) at Kandla. The Customs department found that the licence tendered was not valid for import of ball bearings. It also found that the import was made during the currency of revalidated period of the licences, and such endorsements for such revalidation were forged. The reasoning in each of the orders is the same. It is that the import being unauthorised the goods are liable to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act; Silfer is liable to penalty because it rendered the goods liable to confiscation by its action of filing an invalid import licence. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., the appellant before us is liable to penalty because it was the principal on whose behalf Silfer was acting. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparently passed had not questioned his signature does not by itself establish its authenticity. The fact that the Central Bureau of investigation in some proceedings might have found the Signature to be genuine, as the Collector records, could not be used in the proceedings before him; it is clear from the material that the appellant did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. We however do not think it necessary to pursue this line of reasoning. In our view, whether or not the appellant instructed Silfer to import the goods is not of much relevance. 6. Paragraph 383 of the Import Policy confers in sub-paragraph (1) authority on a licence holder to appoint any person as an agent for arranging imports permitted by the licence. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or erroneously refunded on account of any reason other than any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent, such duty shall not be recovered from the agent unless in the opinion of the Assistant Collector of Customs the same cannot be recovered from the owner, importer or exporter." The Departmental Representative emphasises the use of the word "owner" in sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section. 7. Sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Act defines "import" as bringing into India from a place outside India. Sub-section (26) of Section 2 which specifies the owner of the goods within the meaning of the term "importer" has to be understood in the context of the qualifying clause occurring therein as "in relation to any goods at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he situations, where the act enjoins the owner of the goods imported or export goods to perform any act. Section 63, for example, enjoins the owner of the warehoused goods to pay, keeper warehouse rent and warehouse charges. Section 64 empowers the owner to deal with such goods. Section 65 empowers the owner to carry out manufacturing process and other operations. Section 77 enjoins the owner of the baggage to make a declaration of its contents. These instances are sufficient to demonstrate that the term "owner" has been used in contradistinction of the terms "importers" and "exporters". Whether or not the appellant is the owner of the goods is irrelevant in determining whether it was the importer. It is an act of importation of the goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
