9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with para 48 of the EXIM Policy 1992-97 (as amended) as required by Rule 12 of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993 but he had accepted a subsequent import licence issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport under Section 407 of the Merchant Shipping Act read with para 78 of Hand Book Procedure Vol I for the subject import to be valid. Even though the Commissioner had found that there was a violation, in as much as EXIM code of the importer was not mentioned in the Bill of Entry, he considered the instant importation being for sole use of the importers to fulfil certain contractual obligations involving no foreign exchange and therefore took a lenient view of the omission and did not impose a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (D R) Act 1992 specifies that person who imports goods should obtain the EXIM code and the restriction is on a person importing goods without obtaining code and Section (7) does not relate to prohibition/imported goods, which is specified in Section 3 of this Act. He drew our attention also to Section 3(2) of this Act to submit that Central Govt. is empowered to issue an order to prohibit the import/export of the goods and no such order has been cited by the Revenue for prohibiting the import of subject goods. Since para 78 relied upon by Revenue of the Policy provides that such imports can be made with the licence to be issued, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Surface Transport, Govt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporter on the goods wherein it was held that confiscation on mere non-mention of import export code number was also not justified since it was only a procedural requirement. He also relied upon the case law of CC Mumbai v. B. Arun Kumar Co. reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 141 wherein it was held that technical violations should be viewed leniently as has been reported held by the Commissioner in this case. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and find as follows :- (a) relying upon the case law submitted by the ld. Advocate, there is no ground left for us to come to a conclusion that goods in this case were liable for confiscation or any penalty was required to be imposed for the mere fact of non-mention and non-possession of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
