Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"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 a name lender, but 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 a 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 they are justified in the facts and circumstances, the respondents, it appears, are indefinitely detaining the goods without any appropriate order being passed thereon. Such a course of action, in our opinion, is absolutely illegal."

i)2002 (2) SCC 135 [Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra]

ii)(2008) 10 SCC 394 [Yogesh Vs. State of Maharashtra].

By relying upon the above said decision, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, there is no material to proceed against the petitioner; thus, he sought for discharge of the petitioner.

9.Countering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI, by filing detailed counters, would contend that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein to frame the charges. The circumstance of the execution of Power of Attorney by the petitioner/A1 in favour of the 2nd accused indicates that with a view to keep himself away from the legal complications, the petitioner/A1 executed the Power of Attorney, knowing fully well that with the said Power of Attorney, the accused 2 & 4 would be committing the said offence. The materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner herein/A1. The petitioner/A1 and other co-accused had cheated the Customs Department, Government, in the matter of customs duty evasion to the tune of Rs.11 crores. It is further contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/A1 had not only given Power of Attorney in favour of his brother-in-law (A2-Sheikh Parith) for using his Importer-Exporter Code number, but also had filed the application before DGFT, New Delhi on 12.07.2010 for issue of license for import of Air Conditioner Split/Window containing HCFC (R-22) of various models. While submitting application, the petitioner has also enclosed Sales Contract dated 02.07.2010 issued by Super Soft Pvt Ltd., Singapore in favour of Majestic Impex, Pudukottai. The payment was done by Electronic Fund Transfer vide BID No.709165508 on 09.07.2010 for Rs.50,000/- through HDFC Bank. The importer has also filed a request for issue of the said license manually on 13.07.2010 in the office of ADGFT, Shastry Bhawan, Chennai and enclosed the E-Com hard copy of the EFT, Profile of the applicant firm details with address as H-II, 39, Poonga Nagar, Railway Station Road, Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukottai, ANF-2 B, Copy of IEC No.0410010961, Copy of Pan Allotment Letter No.AKZPS1505 M, Copy of VAT No.33254105479 issued by AC-CT/Pudukottai, Copy of Proforma Invoice dated 02.07.2010 of Super Soft Pvt Ltd., Singapore. Director General of Foreign Trade vide letter No.01/53/8/196/AM11/M-17/I C, dated 07.09.2010 conveyed clearance of import of restricted items by Exports Facilitation Committee in its meeting held on 26.08.2010 to the applicant ie., M/s.Majestic Impex for grant of import authorization of import of 7915 numbers of Air Conditioners containing R-22 Gas. Even R-22 Gas licence issued by Foreign Trade Department is not transferable. Knowing fully well that the said licenses are not transferable, the petitioner/A1 has given Power of Attorney to his brother-in-law (A2) in order to facilitate to commit illegal activities.