TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prise, Shop No. 3, Building-1, Amrit Nagar, Jogeshwari (West), Bombay were intercepted on arrival by airmail. The goods were declared as 'Watch Modules'. The invoices for the goods were inside the mail packages. The goods were declared, as samples. The goods were seized in the belief that they were liable to confiscation. Subsequent investigations showed that at the address given M/s. Sunrise Enterprise did not exist. In the premises was a tailoring shop run by one Mr. A.R. Rahman. Two days subsequent to the seizure, one Mr. M.V. Shamsuddin claimed ownership and produced documents for claiming the goods imported. He furnished a Deed of Partnership between himself and one Mr. J.H. Abdulrahman for the firm Sunrise Enterprise and a cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & (m) of the Customs Act along with containers thereof and that the two partners, the Stamp Vendor, the Notary and Advocate were liable for Penalty. 4. After hearing the Noticees, the Commissioner passed the impugned Order. The Commissioner observed that the contested goods were freely importable. He observed that no provisions of law had been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice which required the importer to possess the documents such as lawful existence and IEC Number on the date of shipment. He referred to the clarification issued by the DGFT to the effect that goods which had arrived prior to obtaining IEC Number could also be cleared on later receipt of such number. He observed that the declaration as 'watch modules' was suf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Shri Irani relied upon Tribunal Orders reported in 2001 (128) ELT 250 [Commr. of Cus., Vizag v. Shipping and Trading Associates (P) Ltd.] in which it is held that non-mention and non-possession of import export code number and licence at the time of import provided they were obtained subsequently did not render the goods liable to confiscation. He also cited the Tribunal Order reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 935 [Laser Sight (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi] with identical ratio. He made the grievance that while the appeal was pending finalisation in the Tribunal the Government had disposed of the goods. Request was made to direct relief on this ground. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 54." 11. The phrase "entry made under this Act" comes from Section 46. In terms of Section 82 which reads as below no entry is made by the importer. That is why where as special mention is made of Section 77, there was no mention of Section 82 in the two clauses of Section 111. "Section 82. Label or declaration accompanying goods to be treated as entry. - In the case of goods imported or exported by post, any label or declaration accompanying the goods, which contains the description, quantity and value thereof, shall be deemed to be an entry for import or export, as the case may be for the purposes of this Act." 12. Apart from this position in law, we have examined the declara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in response to a query in connection with the same case. It has been made clear that IEC Number could be obtained even subsequent to the importation of the goods. Therefore the fact that IEC Number was later obtained was immaterial. 17. As we have observed above the partnership could be an oral agreement which could at a later date be converted into a written agreement. The absence of written agreement cannot automatically establish the non-existence of the partnership. 18. As regards the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) reliance is being placed on notification issued under Section 111. The notification merely requires a declaration to be pasted on the post parcel. Therefore on this ground there is no liability. As we ....