Importer Exporter Code omission treated as a technical lapse, not a ground for confiscation or penalty.

Non-mention of the Importer Exporter Code in the Bill of Entry was treated as a procedural lapse directed at the importer, not a substantive prohibition on the goods. Confiscation under the Customs Act was found to apply only where the goods were prohibited, and no prohibition order under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 was shown. The later corrective permission and licence from the concerned Ministry did not by itself render the goods liable to confiscation or penalty. The omission was therefore treated as technical rather than determinative of illegality.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-mention of the Importer Exporter Code number in the Bill of Entry, and the subsequent import permission and licence obtained from the concerned Ministry, rendered the goods liable for confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the requirement of obtaining and mentioning the Importer Exporter Code was directed against the importer and was a procedural condition, while the confiscation provisions under the Customs Act applied only where the goods were prohibited. It accepted that no order prohibiting the import of the goods under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 had been shown, and that the later corrective permission from the Ministry of Surface Transport did not by itself make the goods liable to confiscation. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, not a substantive prohibition on the goods.

Conclusion: The omission did not justify confiscation or penalty, and the Commissioner's order was upheld.

---