The Delhi High Court has held that the Import Export Code (IEC) holder ought to act responsibly and cannot allow misuse by third parties.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the Appellant, who enjoyed the IEC registration, ought to have acted responsibly and ensured that the same was not misused by any third party. Apart from not being careful about the IEC codes etc., in the present case, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the Appellant and Mr. Rajat Arora were conniving with each other and were fully aware of the transactions and imports that were being undertaken. Their role cannot be delineated and differentiated in the manner that the Appellant seeks to delineate himself.
The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Umesh Kumar under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
The origin of this case goes back to when the Bill of Entry No.6807339 was filed on 18th September, 2014 by one M/s Aromatech which is a sole proprietary concern of the Appellant– Mr. Umesh Kumar, as the importer of certain goods.
The Customs Department, upon examination, realized that the said goods were in excess of the declaration in the Bill of Entry and some goods were, in fact, not declared in the Bill of Entry at all.
Investigation further revealed that on a previous occasion as well, the firm had filed 15 Bills of Entry prior to the Bill of Entry by the same importer and in all these cases, the appellant had availed the benefit of Customs exemption notification no. 12/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 without following the conditions of the notification.
In furtherance to investigation, Show Cause Notice was served, both on the Appellant, Mr. Umesh Kumar and one Mr. Rajat Arora for recovery of differential duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of all the Bills of Entry.
The show cause notice culminated in the Order. Pursuant to the Order, the goods had been seized.
The investigation by the Customs Department further revealed that the Appellant had, in fact, provided his IEC code, as also his bank account details to one Mr. Rajat Arora. There were also allegations of VAT returns having not been filed by the Appellant herein.
In the case of Bill of Entry, the Order was passed in which the demands against the Appellant were confirmed. This was challenged by the Appellant before CESTAT and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT then dismissed both the appeals and held that the demands in the Order-in-Original dated 24th February, 2016 and 4th January, 2018 are completely valid.
The court while dismissing the petition held that the Appellant has, at various stages, tried to evade the true facts and has taken incorrect pleas before various authorities. Such acts on part of the Appellant also shows that the conduct of the Appellant does not deserve any indulgence.
Case Details
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Versus Pr Commissioner Of Customs
Case No.: CUSAA 51/2025 & CM APPLs. 13613/2025 & 13615/2025
Date: 7th April, 2025
Counsel For Appellant: Jitin Singhal
Counsel For Respondent: Monica Benjamin
Read More: Supreme Court Invalidates TN Governor’s Reservation of 10 Bills, Upholds Parliamentary Democracy
