2018 (3) TMI 934 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - attempt to import counterfeit goods - It appeared to Revenue that the said goods were counterfeit and they had contravened Intellectual Property Rights and were prohibited goods - Held that - the counsel for the appellant could not give any justifiable reasons as to why we should interfere with the impugned Order-in-Original - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under different chapters.
2. Allegations of counterfeit goods and undervaluation.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
4. Ownership and importation of goods.
5. Attempted removal of goods without customs formalities.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appeals arose from a common Order-in-Original regarding the classification of imported goods declared as Mobile Phones, Ear Phones, Charger, Battery, and other electronic accessories. The goods were supplied by a Hong Kong-based company and were examined by Customs officers, who found items with well-known brand names like iPhone and Samsung. The Revenue alleged that the goods were counterfeit, contravening Intellectual Property Rights, and grossly undervalued.

Allegations of Counterfeit Goods and Undervaluation:
Following investigations and technical analysis reports confirming the goods as counterfeit, a show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the declared assessable value and enhance it significantly. The Order-in-Original rejected the declared value, enhanced it, and ordered the confiscation of counterfeit goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The remaining mis-declared goods were also confiscated under Section 111(m), with an option for redemption by paying a fine.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The Order-in-Original re-determined the value of the goods, confiscated the counterfeit goods, and imposed a penalty on the importer for violating customs regulations. The decision included detailed provisions for the confiscation of goods, payment of fines, and the imposition of penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Ownership and Importation of Goods:
During the adjudication proceedings, the owner of the seized goods claimed participation, and it was established that the importer was a shell company that existed only on paper. The Order-in-Original detailed the movements of the goods, the attempts to remove them without proper customs formalities, and the discrepancies in the declared value, leading to the decision to reject the declared value and enhance it based on Customs Valuation Rules.

Attempted Removal of Goods Without Customs Formalities:
The Tribunal heard arguments from both the appellant and the Revenue regarding the attempted removal of goods without proper customs formalities, the importation for self-use or re-export to Dubai, and the discrepancies in ownership and importation details. The Tribunal upheld the impugned Order-in-Original, dismissing the appeals and affirming the decision for confiscation, fines, and penalties based on the evidence and contentions presented.

This detailed analysis covers the issues related to the classification, allegations of counterfeit goods, confiscation, ownership, and attempted removal of goods without customs formalities as addressed in the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD judgment.