Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

a) The petitioner concern has been engaged in the import and trading of secondhand digital multifunction printing and copying machines as also the secondhand photocopier machines and its accessories, parts and consumables. For carrying out the said business, the petitioner has been provided with Import and Export Code No.410042277 (for short 'IEC') issued by the office of the Zonal JDGFT, Chennai. During the course of its business, it has imported a consignment comprising of 104 units of old & used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines of various models and 10 units of old and used second hand photocopying machines from the overseas supplier viz. M/s. Jade Group Ltd. (Br) Sharjah, UAE, covered by Invoice No.5113 dated 07.04.2011 for a total CIF value of USD 24750 and filed the above stated Bill of Entry bearing No.3394138 as early as on

3.2. In order to ascertain the facts from the Importer, Sri.S.Rajapathi, the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) holder on whose behalf the said bill of entry was filed by the CHA, was summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said Sri. S.Rajapathi, Proprietor of M/s First Tract Traders was summoned to give evidence and produce documents such as Purchase Order, Payment details and other correspondences with the supplier abroad. In response to the summons, Sri.S.Rajapathi appeared on 20.05.2011 as scheduled and gave a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a month back, one Mohamad Hasan, who in Dubai, informed the petitioner that xerox machines were sent in Sri.S.Rajapathi's Company name; that he had not received the invoice, packing list from the said Mohamad Hasan, and he had not arranged CHA for filing the Bill of Entry; that Shri Mohamad Hasan might have engaged his relative/friends for the customs documentation and he was totally unaware of the import consignment & documents; that he contacted Shri Mohammad Hasan and informed his intention to appear before the investigating officer; that he also informed his intention that he would disown the consignment; that Shri Mohamed Hasan promised to come to India to appear before the investigating officers of Customs; that except giving IEC, he had no connection with this import consignment. The residential address in India, of the so called Sri.Mohamed Hasan was not known to him. The said Sri.Mohamed Hasan also has not yet appeared before the Investigating Officer of DRI, Tuticorin.

4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his written arguments, submits that the goods imported by him is not in any way prohibited or banned and are freely importable into India; that the Department itself having appointed the Chartered Engineer for examining the impugned goods and the said Engineer having valued the goods as early as on 09.05.2011, the officers ought not to have held back the clearance of the goods for the last 9 months which is highly improper and arbitrary. Therefore, the action of the authorities is contrary to circular No.42/2001 dated 31.7.2001 issued by the Ministry, which circular as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court is binding on them; that he is the owner of the goods and is liable to remit the value for the goods to the overseas supplier; that the invoice issued by the overseas supplier, packing list, bill of lading all issued in his name which documents he had filed along with the Bill of Entry clearly evidences his title to the goods leaving no room for the authorities to take any contrary stand and that the petitioner also admittedly holds the Import Export Code (IEC) and Income Tax PAN Card issued in his favour establishing his right to import the goods. 4.2. Further, the only reason for initiating investigation is the import of the goods without a licence. When the goods are importable without a licence, as per the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of M/s.Shivam International and another Vs. CC,Cochin, in A.No.2477 to 2488 of 2010, dated 26.05.2011 and in view of the Minutes of the high level meeting held by the Ministry of Environment & Forest (copy furnished during hearing), the whole action said to have been taken by them causing the long delay is totally unsupported and vitiated. The respondents have not denied the contents of the retraction letter dated 21.6.2011 except for claiming that the petitioner's counsel neither personally appeared before them on behalf of the original importer nor produced the documents called for.