2017 (2) TMI 356 - AT - Customs

Fake and spurious goods imported - breach of law relating to Intellectual Property - Commissioner (Appeals) has directed destruction of the goods - There being a claimant-importer, the cost of destruction shall be at his cost. Revenue is at liberty to realize respective penalties as has been ordered in the adjudication order. Such realization shall be a message to the society that breach of law is not rewarded with bonus but that shall face penal consequence of law.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Intellectual Property law, violation of Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of goods, appeal against confiscation, destruction of goods, penalties for breach of law.

Violation of Intellectual Property law:
The judgment addresses the issue of violation of Intellectual Property law by the importation of fake and spurious goods. The adjudicating authority found that certain goods were in breach of Intellectual Property laws and Customs Act, 1962. The appellate authority initially allowed the appeals of the respondent, but upon review, it was determined that there was no evidence to overturn the adjudication finding. Therefore, the order passed by the adjudicating authority was restored, except for specific directions regarding the destruction of goods.

Confiscation of goods and appeal against confiscation:
The judgment discusses the confiscation of specific items, including Johnson's Baby Shampoo, Johnson's Baby Milk Bath, Clairol Herbal Shampoo, and Gervenne Herbal Conditioning Shampoo. The adjudicating authority had ordered the confiscation of these goods, which was initially overturned by the appellate authority. However, the judgment reinstated the confiscation order, emphasizing that spurious goods should not be rewarded and that penalties for breaching the law should be enforced.

Destruction of goods and penalties for breach of law:
Regarding the destruction of the goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the destruction of the confiscated items. The judgment upheld this direction, stating that the cost of destruction would be borne by the claimant-importer. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that penalties ordered in the adjudication should be realized by the Revenue, sending a message to society that breaching the law would result in penal consequences.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the judgment disposed of all appeals, primarily allowing Revenue appeals and reinstating the confiscation of goods. The destruction of goods was approved, with the importer bearing the cost, and penalties for breaching the law were to be enforced by the Revenue. The judgment serves as a reminder that the breach of law, including violations of Intellectual Property rights and Customs regulations, will not go unpunished.