Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

APPEARANCE:

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO: A /85517 /2023 DATE OF HEARING: 31/03/2023 DATE OF DECISION: 31/03/2023 This appeal of Mr Zubair Shaikh lies against imposition of penalty of ₹ 8,00,000/- under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, and of like amount under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962, following confiscation of goods purportedly imported by him, which C/86285/2020 was upheld in order1 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II with the finding that the imported goods had been mis- declared rendering them liable to confiscation under section 111(d) and section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and that from the statements of several persons, including of the appellant, it had been established that the 'import export code (EC)' had been procured illicitly.

3. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the appellant had admitted to illicit procurement of 'import export code (IEC)' and that the goods did belong to the appellant. He also pointed out that the imports, effected without being in possession of valid pre-requisite under Foreign Trade (Developemnt & Regulations) Act, 1992 waranting confiscation for contravening prohibition under any other law for the time being in force, were rightly subjected to confiscation under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962.

6. Confiscation under section 111(d) appears to have been C/86285/2020 invoked in a routine manner inasmuch as the impugned goods are not prohibited for import. Until bill of entry is filed, the identity of the importer, and lack of 'import-export code (IEC)' will not be known. Though adjudicating authority has invoked the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 without any empowerment to do so, and ostensibly to bring the appellant within the scope of Customs Act, 1962 in circumstances initiating proceedings even before bill of entry was filed, that law, intended to be invoked for prosecution as a consequence of holding property in 'benami' as well as for interdiction of such property, exists as an independent statute not amenable for concatenation with Customs Act, 1962 by any enabling provision.