Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri F. Alexander, Proprietor Shine ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 22 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. C/ 397 and 398/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 767/2009 dated 8.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air cargo) Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Shri F. Alexander, Proprietor Shine Enterprises
Shri Richard Martin Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Smt. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 22.06.2010 Date of Decision: 22.06.2010 Final Order Nos. ____________ Confiscation of memory modules totally valued at a little over Rs. 38 lakhs imported by M/s. Shine Enterprises with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,32,000/-, and penalties of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.70,000/- imposed on Richard Martin and F. Alexander, Proprietor of Shine Enterprises, respectively are challenged in the above appeals.
2. I have heard both sides. The confiscation of the goods arises as a result of holding that Martin was the real importer and that Alexander who possessed an Import and Export Code was not the importer (although he had filed the Bill of Entry) and in the absence of possession of IE code by Martin, contravention of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 was made out, thus attracting the provision of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and attracting penalty under Section 112 ibid. I find no merit in the Revenues case for the reason that admittedly Alexander possesses a valid IE Code and he had filed the Bill of Entry for the goods in question. Martin has also not held himself out to be the owner of the goods. Hence, there is no reason not to treat Shine Enterprises (Proprietor Shri Alexander) as the importer, hence no contravention of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation has been made out and confiscation is therefore not warranted. I, therefore, set aside the confiscation and the penalties on both the appellants and the appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) Vice-President Rex ??
??
??
??
3