2015 (6) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AR   ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is having valid import and export code and imported compact disc rewritable (CDR) in his own name and also against IEC in the name of others. The case of the Revenue is that as impor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tice for violation of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy. He further submits that all the documents were filed in the name of IEC holders and they are importing the goods which are actually used by the appellant and there is no provisions in the Customs Act prohibiting such an act. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Atul D. Sonpal [2012 (275) ELT 248 (Tri-Mum)], penalty is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed in the name of IEC holder. Therefore, as per the decision of Nazir-ur-rahman (supra), imports have been made in the name of IEC holder. Further, the appellants has produced the IEC holder before the Revenue authorities and there is no bar for imports under the Customs Act to import the goods in the name of IEC holder and there is no offence under the Customs Act for lending of IEC code. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X