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

2002 (11) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods were declared as 'Watch Modules'. The invoices for the goods were inside the mail packages. The goods were declared, as samples. The goods were seized in the belief that they were liable to confiscation. Subsequent investigations showed that at the address given M/s. Sunrise Enterprise did not exist. In the premises was a tailoring shop run by one Mr. A.R. Rahman. Two days subsequent to the seizure, one Mr. M.V. Shamsuddin claimed ownership and produced documents for claiming the goods imported. He furnished a Deed of Partnership between himself and one Mr. J.H. Abdulrahman for the firm Sunrise Enterprise and a certificate giving the Import Export Code Number. It was found that earlier he had claimed another Import Export Code Number .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable for Penalty. 4.After hearing the Noticees, the Commissioner passed the impugned Order. The Commissioner observed that the contested goods were freely importable. He observed that no provisions of law had been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice which required the importer to possess the documents such as lawful existence and IEC Number on the date of shipment. He referred to the clarification issued by the DGFT to the effect that goods which had arrived prior to obtaining IEC Number could also be cleared on later receipt of such number. He observed that the declaration as 'watch modules' was sufficient for the purpose of Section 82 of the Customs Act. Citing the procedure for clearance of post parcels, he observed that the goods cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mention and non-possession of import export code number and licence at the time of import provided they were obtained subsequently did not render the goods liable to confiscation. He also cited the Tribunal Order reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 935 [Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi] with identical ratio. He made the grievance that while the appeal was pending finalisation in the Tribunal the Government had disposed of the goods. Request was made to direct relief on this ground. 9.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 10.When the goods are imported by Land, Sea or Air a Bill of Entry is filed for their clearance in terms of Section 46 of the Customs Act 1962 where the responsibil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . That is why where as special mention is made of Section 77, there was no mention of Section 82 in the two clauses of Section 111. "Section 82. Label or declaration accompanying goods to be treated as entry. - In the case of goods imported or exported by post, any label or declaration accompanying the goods, which contains the description, quantity and value thereof, shall be deemed to be an entry for import or export, as the case may be for the purposes of this Act." 12.Apart from this position in law, we have examined the declaration pasted to the parcel. There is no significant difference in the declaration between 'watch movements' and 'watch modules'. The value has been declared as per invoice. The fact that the value is contested .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved above the partnership could be an oral agreement which could at a later date be converted into a written agreement. The absence of written agreement cannot automatically establish the non-existence of the partnership. 18.As regards the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) reliance is being placed on notification issued under Section 111. The notification merely requires a declaration to be pasted on the post parcel. Therefore on this ground there is no liability. As we have mentioned above the goods are freely importable and therefore confiscation under Section 11l(d) of the Act was not warranted. 19.Thus we find that the Commissioner was right in holding that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Since Shri Shamsudd .....

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