Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These five appeals arise out of the single Order of the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay Airport. As the issue and parties are inter connected, these appeals are disposed of vide this single order.

2. 5 Mail packages addressed to Sunrise Enterprise, Shop No. 3, Building-1, Amrit Nagar, Jogeshwari (West), Bombay were intercepted on arrival by airmail. The 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. He clarified that he had another company which was in possession of the IEC Number which he had wrongly given as that of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise. Mr. Shamsuddin stated that he did not know why the sender has described the goods as 'samples'. Subsequent enquiries showed that the Partnership Deed purported to be made in July 1998 was actually made subsequent to the import of the goods J.H. Abdulrahman, the partner of M.W. Shamsuddin was the owner of the tailoring shop occupying the premises and was known to M.W. Shamsuddin for several years. He claimed that he had signed the Partnership Deed on 7-11-1998 in good faith. In further investigations the Stamp Vendor Mr. Mutta agreed to having back dated the stamp paper and having put a bogus serial number for money consideration. The Notary Shri Lambat stated that he had notarized the document on seeing the signature of Shri Pandey, the Advocate. He admitted that the partners were not before him when he notarized the document. He stated that the date was put later by someone else. Advocate Shri Pandey claimed that the signature on the notarized deed was not his.

8. Shri Irani relied upon Tribunal Orders reported in 2001 (128) ELT 250 [Commr. of Cus., Vizag v. Shipping and Trading Associates (P) Ltd.] in which it is held that non-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.