Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (8) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai undertook investigation about misuse of Import-Export Code (EC) in illegal imports of textiles and the investigation revealed that one Mr. Naresh Pandya had obtained 42 IECs in his own name or in the names of his relatives/friends from DGFT, Mumbai.  One such IEC No. 0307043258 obtained by Naresh Pandya was in the name of M/s Tulsi Trading Co showing Dewang Pandya, son of Mr. Naresh Pandya, as proprietor. It was further revealed that M/s Tulsi Trading Co had imported three containers of polyester fabrics vide Bills of Entry No.764840 dated 8.3.2008, 764837 dated 28.3.2008 and 769634 dated 01.04.2008. Two of the consignments mentioned above had already been cleared, while the third was still pending cleara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8/- to Rs 49,30,980/- under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also demanding differential duty of Rs 20,09,664/-. The show cause notice also proposed to impose penalties on M/s Tulsi Trading Co under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, on Mr. Dewang Pandya under Section 112 and Mr. Naresh Pandya under Section 112 (a) of the Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs vide the impugned order wherein he ordered reclassification of 37236.64 mtrs of dyed fabrics under Customs Tariff Heading No 55121910. The learned Commissioner also rejected the declared assessable value of Rs 30,09,458/- and redetermined the same at Rs 49,30,980/- under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3288 of 2009 had, inter alia, held that if a person having a valid IEC number had paid Customs duty on the imported goods, the goods have to be released to such person notwithstanding the fact that the IEC number might have been obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Director General of Foreign Trade. In such cases, the Customs authority cannot take any action and it is for the DGFT to act on any misrepresentation. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, the goods have been imported in the name of M/s Tulsi Trading Co and the IEC number has been validly issued by DGFT and in the documents submitted to the Customs, M/s Tulsi Trading Co has been declared as the importer and hence the g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is not legally sustainable and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. The learned JDR appearing for the department reiterated the finding given by the adjudicating authority.  He submits that Mr. Devang Pandya is the proprietor of M/s Tulsi Trading Co and in his submission before the adjudicating authority, he has clearly stated that he is not involved in any of the activities undertaken in the name of M/s Tulsi Trading Co and only his father has been undertaking the activities. Since the proprietor of the firm M/s Tulsi Trading Co has denied involvement in the import activities, they cannot be considered as importers and hence the confiscation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o M/s Tulsi Trading Co and in respect of the goods, which are yet to be released, the importer is M/s Tulsi Trading Co. Therefore, the person from whose possession the goods are seized is clearly known. As the goods are not prohibited goods, the impugned order which has confiscated the goods without giving an option to redeem the same on payment of fine is not in accordance with the law and merits to be set aside.  From the records of the adjudication proceedings, a copy of which has been submitted by the appellants before us, it is seen that the adjudicating authority had acknowledged receipt of documents relating to contemporaneous imports and had taken on record the same during the personal hearing held on 14.12.2009. The learned a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates