Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vii) Proprietor, Carmel Exports & Imports v. CC, Cochin - 2012 (276) ELT 505 (Ker.) "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 C/86381 & 86382/2013 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."' held that '11. In view of the above reproduced ratio of various judgments, it has to be concluded that an importer under Section 2(26) is a person who has filed the Bills of Entry for the clearances and has paid the Customs duty. The above said judgments also lay down a ratio that an IEC code holder cannot be denied the clearances of consignments if he has filed the Bills of Entry. In these appeals before us, it is undisputed that Bills of Entry are not filed by the appellant C/86381 & 86382/2013 herein and in our considered view, he cannot be held as an importer.'