2011 (4) TMI 1072 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - three of the 22 items in the consignment imported by the appellant have been absolutely confiscated by the learned Commissioner without disclosing to them the relevant information under the Intellectual Property Rights - confiscation of the goods was proposed under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act - Held that - appellant has apparently been kept in the dark about the action taken by IPR holder even though such information is extremely relevant to the appellant s claim for release of the branded goods. The IPR Rules referred to by the learned counsel were issued under Section 156 of the Customs Act, Customs authorities, on the facts and circumstances of this case, should have acted in accordance with the procedure laid down under these Rules, goods imported by the appellant are still under absolute confiscation, application is, therefore, allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of value of imported items and imposition of fine and penalty.
2. Confiscation of goods under Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Rules without proper disclosure.
3. Request for out-of-turn hearing and disposal of the appeal based on IPR Rules and past judgments.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Enhancement of value and imposition of fine and penalty
The Commissioner increased the value of certain items in the consignment imported by the appellant and imposed a fine and penalty. The combined assessable value of the consignment was determined, and duty was paid accordingly. A fine and penalty were imposed, covered by a stay application filed by the appellant. The appellant had provided a bank guarantee at the time of importation. After considering the submissions and facts presented, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the fine and penalty.

Issue 2: Confiscation under IPR Rules
The appellant sought out-of-turn hearing and disposal of the appeal due to the absolute confiscation of three items without proper disclosure under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. The appellant claimed that they were not informed about the actions taken by the IPR holder, as required by the rules. The appellant highlighted the procedural requirements under the IPR Rules, emphasizing the need for the Customs authorities to act accordingly. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence showing compliance with the rules, resulting in the goods remaining under absolute confiscation. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the application for out-of-turn disposal of the appeal.

Issue 3: Request for out-of-turn hearing based on past judgments
The appellant referenced past judgments and IPR Rules to support the request for out-of-turn disposal of the appeal. The appellant pointed out the failure of the department to provide relevant information regarding the actions of the IPR holder, which was crucial for the release of the branded goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the information and the necessity for compliance with the IPR Rules. Citing a previous High Court judgment, the appellant argued for fair treatment based on similar cases. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions, allowing the application and scheduling the appeal for an out-of-turn hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of value enhancement, confiscation under IPR Rules, and the request for out-of-turn hearing comprehensively, ensuring fair consideration of the appellant's claims and legal rights.