9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate, for Appellant(s) Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent(s) Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are taken together for decision since they are arising out of common Order-in-Original bearing No. 12/Pr. Commr./Noida-CUS/2017 dated 21.07.2017 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Vidhata Overseas, B-106, First Floor, Vikas Tower, PVR Compex, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, filed Bill of Entry No. 0000207 dated 26.07.2016 for Home Consumption at Arshiya Supply Chain Management (P) Ltd. FTWZ, Khurja, for clearance of imported goods declared as Mobile Phones, Ear Phones, Charger, Battery, Cards for DTH, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 110 of Customs Act, 1962. On inquiry it was gathered that M/s Vidhata Overseas was a shell company and existed only on papers. It appeared that the seized goods were counterfeit and piratical within the meaning of Section 2(33) of Customs Act, read with Rule 6 of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. The procedure under IPR Rules to secure technical analysis report from the brand owner was followed. For the said purpose Ms. Gurpreet Gulati, Advocate IPR Consultant from M/s React India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon authorized on behalf of brand owner Apple, Samsung Michael Kors M/s Anand Anand were requested to inspect the seized goods. On inspection they submitted technical analysis report that the goods were co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined that some unscrupulous elements attempted to gate out the said container by presenting fake gate passes purported to have been issued by Custodian/Customs, to the security official. He further recorded that movement of goods from ICD Dadri to Arshiya Free Trade Warehousing Zone, Khurja could not take place as the officer proposed to examine the cargo at Dadri CSF after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority. He further recorded that declared value of mobile phones was US$ 2.0 to US$ 3.5 which was found to be grossly undervalued. Therefore, as provided under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 he has ordered enhancement of value to ₹ 10,63,05,550/-. Further, the goods were found to be counterfeit, therefore, they were ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay in lieu of confiscation a redemption fine of ₹ 1,25,00,000/- (Rs. One Crores Twenty Five Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith appropriate customs duty and interest. The fine duty is to be paid within 30 days of the issue of this order. 7.4 I impose a penalty of ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rs. Sixty Lakhs Only) on M/s Vidhata Overseas under Section 112 (a)(v) of the Customs Act, 1962 4. Aggrieved by the said order appellants are before this Tribunal. Heard Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that said goods were imported for self-use. Subsequently, he submitted that said goods were imported for re-export to Dubai. Further he submitted that Bill of entry unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
