https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95194 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. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95194 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. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95194