9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties undertaken by the appellant and the said firm is a proprietorship belonging to the employee of the appellant. It is also on record that merely for the use of the IEC, the appellant has been paying a fixed sum per container basis to the IEC holder. It is further seen that the appellant has been importing ‘Nokia’ brand mobile phone accessories which are duplicate in nature and therefore, violating of IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules is also involved. Thus it is not a mere case of misuse of IEC code but involves violations of a number of laws including undervaluation and mis-declaration of the goods - The appellant not only mis-declared the value of the goods but also imported duplicate goods bearing the brand name of well known bra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rseas supplier for supply of mobile phone accessories, arranged the CHA for the Customs clearances and also paid the Customs duty thereon. However, Bill of Entry was filed using IEC Code of Cell On Traders and he was paying Rs. 10,000/- per container of Shri Shaikh Irfan Rashid. He had indulged in this activity previously also in respect of 17 consignments and adopting the same modus operandi by importing the consignments under the IEC of other people and also undervaluing the goods. Apart from the above, the consignments imported by Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia also contained import of branded mobile phone accessories bearing the brad name of Nokia whereas the goods were duplicate in nature. Thus, he violated provisions of Rule 3 of the Inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver of pre-deposit. He submits that in the present case it is not mere misuse of IEC Code issued to others but also undervaluation of the goods and violation of the provisions of IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. Therefore, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant, being the main bran behind the whole scheme of illegal import, is liable to penalty under Section 112 (a). 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides. 5.1 From the statements recorded from the appellant as also the IEC holder, it is evident that the appellant Avesh Hanif Pitodia is the real importer and he has placed the order with the foreign supplier, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
