Importer status depends on Bill of Entry and valid Import and Export Code; confiscation and penalties failed without contrary evidence.

A person who files the Bill of Entry and holds a valid Import and Export Code may be treated as the importer where there is no evidence that another person held itself out as owner of the goods. On those facts, foreign trade contravention is not established, and the resulting confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act cannot be sustained. The decisive point is the absence of material displacing the filer's importer status, which removes the foundation for enforcement action based on alleged misidentification of the importer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, who held a valid Import and Export Code and filed the Bill of Entry, was to be treated as the importer so as to negate contravention under the foreign trade law and the consequential confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The goods were confiscated on the premise that another person was the real importer and that the appellant was not the importer despite filing the Bill of Entry. The decisive consideration was that the appellant possessed a valid Import and Export Code, had filed the Bill of Entry, and there was no material to show that the other person had held himself out as the owner of the goods. On those facts, the alleged contravention of the foreign trade provision was not established, and the basis for confiscation and penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The appellant was treated as the importer, no contravention was made out, and the confiscation and penalties were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the person filing the Bill of Entry holds a valid Import and Export Code and is not displaced by evidence of another person's ownership or import status, foreign trade contravention and the consequential confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained.

---