9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not met the actual importer. In view of above, the failure to observe Regulation 11(d) stands established. Regulation 11(e) - Held that: - Shri Vinod Kumar was the actual beneficiary of all the transactions but the entire documentation was shown in the name of M/s Shiva Enterprises. The CB has made no efforts to verify the functioning of his client at the given address and the correctness of IEC code number. It is evident that the CB has failed to verify antecedents, correctness of IEC details, etc. - Both the persons have admitted the fact that Shri Vinod Kumar is the owner of the imported goods but Shri Dinesh was shown as proprietor of M/s Shiva Enterprises. Regarding the CB, Shri Vinod Kumar has been changing his stand as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of goods as per the details given to him by the importer. But on examination of goods, apart from the declared goods, other goods like cosmetic items of different brands, mobile phones of different brands, electronic items of various brands were also found. In addition, it was noticed during physical examination that the undeclared goods were found bearing marking of Made in India , being of brands like Lakme, Ponds, Lotus, etc. After obtaining samples of the original products from the respective manufacturers in India and comparing the same with the imported goods, it appeared that the imported goods were counterfeit goods involving violation of IPR Rules, 2007. In addition, the description and value of imported goods were also mis-de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracted but the adjudicating authority has failed to give due weightage to such retraction. iii) The Inquiry Officer has held that the appellant is not guilty of violation of Regulation 11(a). iv) He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in appellant s own case of different imports vide Final Order No.56660/2017 dated 21.09.2017 in which the Tribunal set-aside the revoking of the CB license. 5. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the CB did not declare the details of the imported goods correctly in the bill of entry. They failed to obtain the relevant details, such as the brand, and did not declare the same in bill of entry as required. The customs offence case pertaining to M/s Shiva Enterprises is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the record, it is seen that M/s Shiva Enterprises was showing Shri Dinesh Kumar as proprietor. However, Shri Vinod Kumar was the actual beneficiary of all the transactions but the entire documentation was shown in the name of M/s Shiva Enterprises. The CB has made no efforts to verify the functioning of his client at the given address and the correctness of IEC code number. It is evident that the CB has failed to verify antecedents, correctness of IEC details, etc. 10. During the course of investigation, statements of both S/Shri Dinesh and Vinod Kumar have been recorded more than once. Both the persons have admitted the fact that Shri Vinod Kumar is the owner of the imported goods but Shri Dinesh was shown as proprietor of M/s Shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
