Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

3. Show Cause Notice was issued on 26-4-1999 proposing to increase the value of watch modules in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. It was alleged that the watch modules were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) & (m) of the Customs Act along with containers thereof and that the two partners, the Stamp Vendor, the Notary and Advocate were liable for Penalty.

4. After hearing the Noticees, the Commissioner passed the impugned Order. The Commissioner observed that the contested goods were freely importable. He observed that no provisions of law had been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice which required the importer to possess the documents such as lawful existence and IEC Number on the date of shipment. He referred to the clarification issued by the DGFT to the effect that goods which had arrived prior to obtaining IEC Number could also be cleared on later receipt of such number. He observed that the declaration as 'watch modules' was sufficient for the purpose of Section 82 of the Customs Act. Citing the procedure for clearance of post parcels, he observed that the goods could be cleared on perusal of the declaration and in case of doubt only the recipient would be called. He observed that on the face of the declaration there was nothing found lacking and also there was no misdeclaration. He therefore declined to order confiscation of the goods or to impose any penalty on any of the noticees. He further directed that the value of the goods be determined in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules. The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue against this Order.

5. The case for the Revenue was presented by Shri V. Gupta.

6. Shri M.W. Shamsuddin & Shri J.H. Rahman were represented by Shri Ravi Hirani., Shri Dwivedi was representing S/Shri Lambat and Pandey. Shri Mutta was neither present nor represented.

7. Shri Gupta maintained that any goods imported by a non-existing firm were liable to confiscation. It was claimed that the consignee being non-existent the Customs Declaration was wrongly made and there-

fore the charge of misdeclaration would sustain. It was claimed that 'watch movements' being declared as 'watch modules' amounted to a misdeclaration. Declaring the goods as 'samples' was another dimension of misdeclaration. Charges of misdeclaration having been proved, he urged that the goods were liable for confiscation as also penalty was leviable on all the Respondents.

15. It is quite correct and it is established that the partnership agreement was back dated. But this has no material bearing on the import of 'watch modules'. We have seen the ITC (HS) Classification which at the material time listed both 'watch modules' and 'watch movements' as freely importable items. Therefore the name of the person importing the watch movements was not at all material for the purpose of importation.

16. We have earlier noticed a communication from the DGFT to the Customs in response to a query in connection with the same case. It has been made clear that IEC Number could be obtained even subsequent to the importation of the goods. Therefore the fact that IEC Number was later obtained was immaterial.