2000 (10) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules non-declaration of Importer Exporter Code not penalizable

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision in a case involving the non-declaration of the Importer Exporter Code Number in the Bill of Entry for an ... Confiscation Issues:1. Whether the failure to declare the Importer Exporter Code Number in the Bill of Entry should lead to confiscation of goods.2. Whether the violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 should result in the imposition of a penalty.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's decision regarding an import of a barge where the Importer Exporter Code Number was not declared in the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner did not impose a penalty or confiscate the goods, considering the importation for the importers' sole use to fulfill contractual obligations without involving foreign exchange. The Revenue argued that the subsequent import license should not have been accepted, and the goods should be liable for confiscation due to the absence of valid permission during import. The Revenue also contended that the violation of Section 7 of the Act should have been viewed seriously, urging for a penalty.2. The Revenue emphasized that the non-declaration of the EXIM code should be considered a prohibition for importing goods, mandating confiscation under the Customs Act. The importer's representative argued that Section 7 of the Act pertains to obtaining the EXIM code by the person importing goods and does not relate to prohibition. The importer had obtained an import license with the Ministry of Surface Transport's concurrence, indicating that the goods were not prohibited. The representative highlighted that technical violations should be viewed leniently, citing relevant case laws.3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and found that the goods were not liable for confiscation or penalty solely due to the non-mention and non-possession of the EXIM code. The Tribunal acknowledged that corrective steps were taken after inadequate letters were issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport, absolving the importer of fault. It was noted that if the intention was to penalize imports without an import-export code, it should have been explicitly stated in the relevant laws.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere, confirming the Commissioner's order regarding the importation of the barge and the handling of the EXIM code issue, emphasizing the importance of clear legal provisions in determining liabilities for violations.