Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C/85623, 85715-85720/2023 Though section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 enables imposition of penalty in the absence of prescription elsewhere in the statute, it does not empower conceiving of contraventions and breaches not elsewhere specified. It is intended to be invoked for breach of statutory stipulations that must be enumerated before recourse can be had to imposing detriment. The narration of '199. Further, I find that Shri Sagar Jalinder Ghare, Shri Mubin Mohd Asif Sheikh, and Shri Sachin Kantian Patel had provided their IEC code intentionally to Shri Ismail Tambawala, Shri Abdul Wahab, Shri Manish Vanigota for their personal benefit of Rs. 10,000/- for each import. In their statement to officers of DRI they have accepted the fact of giving their IEC to these entities for import of the impugned goods. I find that this act of Shri Sagar Jalinder Ghare, Shri Mubin Mohd Asif Sheikh, and Shri Sachin Kantilal Patel can be termed as "name lender" for the import of goods by Shri Ismail Tambawala, Shri Abdul Wahab. and Shri Manish Vanigota the actual beneficiaries of the import. The Importer Exporter Code number (IEC) is a unique ten digit number allotted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and is linked with the PAN number. It is mandatory for every importer/exporter to obtain an IEC. It enables easy identification of the importers. However, to avoid punitive action, bogus IECS are used to carry out dubious transactions. These are either obtained by misrepresentation of facts or by using genuine IECs fraudulently by third parties without the knowledge or consent of the actual IEC holder or by "lending" out for use, by the actual IEC holder to a third party. ........' in the impugned order, patently, is bereft of any elaboration of C/85623, 85715-85720/2023 prescription not complied with or proscription that was defied. Furthermore, the intent of the adjudicating authority, apparent in '199. ............This lending of IEC amounts to committing of Commercial fraud therefore I am of the opinion that to deter such persons from further committing such fraudulent activities penalty on them under section 117 is justified on them.' of the impugned order is not tenable in a statute legislated for punitive detriment and not preventive deterrent. These suffice to set aside the several penalties.