9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of any such proposition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected - C/83, 85, 87 & 94-97/2009 - 10-16/2011 - Dated:- 3-1-2011 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri K.S. Chandrasekhar, JDR and Phaneendra Rao, AC, Hyderabad, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. All these appeals are disposed off by a common order, as the issue involved is the same. 2. None appears for the respondents despite notice. Since the issue involved in these cases is in narrow compass, I take up the appeals for disposal in the absence of any representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand. Coming to such a conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the department s appeal. They would submit that the grounds of appeal raised by them would be read. 5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the basic thrust of the Revenue s appeals is that the respondents herein had violated the provisions of Section 7 of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Foreign Trade Policy, which would indicate that no export or import shall be made by any person without an Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) number unless specifically exempted. It is their submission that for an assessee to import or export of any goods, irrespective of their description, if imported or exported without possessing an IEC wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch they have not given any satisfactory explanation and requested for filing manual Bill of Entry. The importer is not in possession of IEC as provided under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. Therefore, they are liable for penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.1 Against such an order, the Revenue s appeal was disposed off by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by recording the following findings :- I have gone through the case records. The impugned order is totally bereft of the details of the goods imported. In the absence of such details, it is next to impossible to say whether contravention of Sec. 111(d) can be alleged as sought for by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962. On a specific query from the Bench, the learned DRs fairly accepted that no show-cause notices were issued to the respondents in these cases under Section 124 for either confiscation of the goods or for the purpose of imposition of penalty. On a plain reading of the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is very clear that proposal for confiscation and imposition of penalty needs to be preceded by issuance of show-cause notice. If it is the case of the Revenue that the goods imported by the respondents herein were prohibited goods due to non-availability of IEC number and would in turn be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, Revenue should have issued a show-cause notice un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
