Importer status under Customs law cannot be shifted after importation when existing bills of entry and confiscation proceedings already stand on record.

The Customs Act definition of "importer" was applied to hold that a later claimant cannot be substituted for goods already shown in the manifest and covered by existing bills of entry filed in another concern's name. Once importation was complete, the petitioner could not require Customs to accept fresh bills of entry for the same consignments. The pending confiscation proceedings, arising from a fraudulently obtained import licence and attracting Section 111(d), reinforced the position that the fresh filing could not be used to bypass the confiscatory process. Customs was therefore justified in refusing to note the bills of entry and in declining release of the goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could claim to be the importer and require the Customs authorities to receive its bills of entry and release the consignments, notwithstanding the earlier bills of entry filed in the name of another concern and the pending confiscation proceedings based on a fraudulent import licence.

Analysis: The definition of "importer" under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 was construed in the setting of the words "between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption". The goods had already been imported and shown in the manifest in the name of M/s. Continental Silk House before the petitioner asserted any claim. The earlier bills of entry filed by the clearing agents of that concern remained on record and had not been cancelled. In such circumstances, another person could not be substituted as importer for the same goods after importation was complete. The Court also noted that the import licence granted to the original consignee had been cancelled for fraud and that adjudication for confiscation was pending, making Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 applicable. The attempt to file fresh bills of entry was treated as an effort to circumvent the pending confiscatory proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to be treated as the importer for these consignments, and the Customs authorities were justified in refusing to note the bills of entry and in declining release of the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: After importation is complete and a consignment stands entered in the manifest and covered by existing bills of entry, a subsequent claimant cannot displace the recorded importer to clear the same goods, particularly where the import is under confiscation proceedings for fraudulent procurement of the import licence.

---