Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Investigations were continued into the past imports which revealed that Shri Vineet Gupta was handling the entire business of these fictitious firms. It was found that M/s. Neeru Trading (proprietor Shri Naveen Kumar), M/s. Nihal Trading (proprietor Shri Mahesh Kumar), and M/s Ashok Enterprises (proprietor Shri Deepak) in whose names goods were imported did not exist at all at the addresses given in the importer exporter codes (IEC) issued in their names. The imports were actually done by Shri Vineet Gupta in the name of these firms and he admitted this fact in his statement before the DRI. Shri Naveen Kumar the purported proprietor of M/s. Neeru Trading clarified in his statement that he was not the proprietor of that firm nor was he concerned with it in any way. He further said that the documents showing his name used to open a bank account in his name were all forged.

11. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 7 & 11 of FTDR 1992 prohibit import or export without Importer-Exporter Code Number or by any person against the provisions of FTDR Act 1992. In the instant case forged documents were submitted to Karnataka Bank to get accounts opened in the name of M/s Neeru Trading Co. & other fictitious firms. Apart from this, forged signatures of Shri Naveen Kumar & others who had been projected as the proprietors of various fictitious companies by Shri Vineet Gupta had been appended on various documents submitted on behalf of M/s Neeru Trading Co. & others by Shri Vineet Gupta only. It was on the basis of wrong information submitted to DGFT that Shri Vineet Gupta got successful in getting an IEC Code in the name of fictitious companies. The above referred IEC Numbers thus could not have any legal sanctity in the eyes of law having been obtained by practicing fraud on the government and are such as if there is no IEC with the importing firm. The acts/omissions mentioned in Customs Appeal No. 2253 of 2012 Section 7 & 11 would, therefore, operate as prohibitions contained in the statute and the goods imported in the name of fictitious firms holding fake / fraudulently obtained IEC Numbers became prohibited under Section 2 (33) of Customs Act, 1962. Further even if the goods were not available for confiscation, the liability for confiscation should have been adjudged under Section 111(d).

Customs Appeal No. 2253 of 2012 15.8 We also observe that the provisions of Section 7 and 11 of FTDR, 1992 prohibit import or export without Importer-Exporter Code Number or by any person against the provisions of FTDR Act, 1992. The acts/omissions mentioned in Section 7 and 11 would, therefore, operate as prohibitions contained in the statue. Therefore, the goods imported in the name of fictitious firms holding fake/fraudulently obtained IEC numbers are prohibited under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods being prohibited were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. But the adjudicating authority below has held that at the time of detection of fraud relating IEC, the goods were not physically available for the detention/seizure/confiscation etc. and the goods were not tainted with violation of import policy nor were there any allegations of mis-declaration description/value/quantity.