Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has obtained an Import Export Code (IEC) No. AALCF8518K on 18 March, 2025 from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). It is next stated that the DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit is investigating cases pertaining to import of mis- declared and restricted/prohibited goods including misuse of warehousing provisions under Section 59 of the Customs Act. It is stated that investigations revealed that the petitioner had knowingly and deliberately filed warehouse Bills of Entry after having knowledge that the goods belonging to the same supplier shipped through the same shipper, imported into India by another IEC holder/Importer were kept on hold by the DRI, being similar goods which were 27 February, 2026 WP957_2026.DOC seized and are under investigation. It is stated that in the present case, warehousing Bills of Entry were filed as an afterthought to circumvent the mandatory regulatory compliances on the permissible imports as envisaged under the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. It is contended that the actions of the petitioner were clearly to circumvent the mandatory compliances as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Cosmetics Rules 2020 whereunder, no import of cosmetics was allowed without prior CDSCO licence. In such context, reference is made to the provisions of Section 2 of the Customs Act and more particularly to the definition of "assessment" [Section 2(2)], "import" [Section 2(23)]; "importer" [Section 2(26)]; "imported goods" [Section 2(25)], and the definition of "India" [Section 2(27)]. Also reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 46(1), 46(4A)(c) of the Customs Act and the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 to contend that there is no distinction between home consumption Bills of Entry and Warehouse Bills of Entry filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act. It is contended that the warehouse Bills of Entry are required to be self assessed by the importer under Section 17 of the Customs Act, and are akin to the Bills of Entry for home consumption. It is next contended that considering the fact that the petitioner did not possess the CDSCO licence, the goods were prohibited goods as per Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. The relevant extracts of the reply affidavit are required to be noted, which reads thus: