Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
iii)It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner/A-5 Radhakrishnan is a close friend of Jahangir, who is the father of A-2 and A-4 and the petitioner knew very well that Import and Export Code (IEC) and R-22 gas licence issued by the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (ADGFT) was non-transferable, but in collusion with A-2 and A-4, the petitioner filed the bills of entry involved in this case in the name of different persons and facilitated A-2 and A-4 to import goods without paying actual customs duty. The petitioner/A-5 being the Customs House Agent (CHA), deliberately failed to ascertain and verify the basic details and colluded with A-2 and A-4 in cheating the Customs Department. A-2 and A-4 were introduced to the petitioner/A-5 by their father and A-5, who knew very well that A-2 and A-4 were running business in the name of M/s.Emerald & Co., S.D Impex and M.S.Trading & Co allowed them to file bills of entry in the name of M/s.Majestic Impex and M/s.SSP Enterprises and in such circumstances, A-5 has deliberately colluded with A-2 and A-4 in filing fabricated documents by them and causing huge revenue loss to the Customs Department. By the above said acts, the petitioner/A-5 along with other accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468 and 468 r/w 471 I.P.C. Hence, the above said case was registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner/A-5 herein filed petitions to discharge him from the cases before the trial court, but the said petitions were dismissed by the trial court, as per the impugned orders. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/A-5 has come forward with the present criminal revision cases before this Court.
15.Coming to the submission that the appellant is only a name lender for the import of goods by one Anwar, we shall presume for the time being that the appellant is only name lender, bu the actual beneficiary of the import is one Anwar. We called upon learned counsel for the respondents to place the relevant provision which prohibits such an activity on the part of an Import Export Code Number holder. Learned counsel for the respondents categorically made a statement that he is not able to place any such prohibition in law except Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which reads as follows:-
7.Importer-exporter Code Number:- No person shall make any import or export except under an Importer-exporter Code Number granted by the Director General or the officer authorised by the Director General in this behalf, in accordance with the procedure specified in this behalf by the Director General..
The expression import occurring in the said section means bringing into India of goods as defined under Section 2(e). There is nothing in the law which requires an importer to be either the consumer or even the buyer of the goods also. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that it is a matter of common sense that no importer would consume all the materials imported. Necessarily, the goods imported are meant for sale to the consumer, in which case, if an importer, who enjoys the facility of I.E Code imports certain goods in the normal course of business on the strength of a contract entered by such importer with either a consumer or a trader who eventually sells the imported goods to consumers. We do not understand what can be the legal objection for such a transaction especially where the import of such goods is otherwise not prohibited by law. At any rate, if the respondents have any tenable legal objection on that count, the respondents must pass an appropriate order indicating the legal basis on which the action is proposed and also the nature of the action proposed for such perceived violation of law on the part of the respondents after giving reasonable opportunity to the importer to meet the case against him. Instead of proceeding to determine the duty leviable on the imported goods by following the appropriate procedure or passing an order of confiscation if they believe that indefinitely detaining the goods without any appropriate order being passed thereon. Such a course of action, in our opinion, is absolutely illegal.