9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing monetary consideration to him. Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia owned a shop by similar name i.e. M./s. Cell On Shri Shaika Irfan Rashid does not have any legal identity in the shop except for the fact that he was working in the shop. However, for importing consignments of mobile phone accessories Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia did not take IEC in his own name nor in his shop's name but arranged the IEC code in the name of Cell On Traders, making Shri Shaikh Irfan Rashid, as its proprietor and declaring the residential address of Shri. Shaikh Irfan Rashid as the address of M/s Cell On Traders. Shri Pitodia placed order with the overseas supplier for supply of mobile phone accessories, arranged the CHA for the Customs clearances and also paid the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that import of goods under the IEC Code issued to other is not a violation of the provisions of the Customs Act or the provisions of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. He relies on the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva 2009 (241) ELT 168 and Carmel Exports & Imports vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin 2012 (276) ELT 505 (Ker) in support of his contention and accordingly prays for grant of waiver of pre-deposit. 4. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue strongly opposes the plea for waiver of pre-deposit. He submits that in the present case it is not mere misuse of IEC Code issued to others but also underval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon by the appellant, they dealt with a situation where the importer used the IEC code of another. In that context the hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that using IEC code of another person is not a violation of the law. In the present case of the facts are completely different and distinct. The appellant not only mis-declared the value of the goods but also imported duplicate goods bearing the brand name of well known brands there by contravening the provisions of IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 and Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993. Thus the appellant has not made out a case for total waiver of the penalty imposed on the appellant. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs. 5 (Five) Lakhs within a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
