9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank guarantee by 17.4.2017. Whereas the Bond has been filed on 24.5.2018 and thus, there is breach of time limit at this stage also. The impugned order for confiscation and penalty is bad and against the provisions of the law. Further, the impugned order is bad for violation of the prescribed conditions and limitation prescribed under the Intellectual Property Rights; Customs Authorities prescribed by the Board and further also is in violation of Notification No.47 of 2007-Customs and the instructions dated 29.10.2007 prescribed by the Board vide F.No.305/96/2004-FTT(Part-I) read with F.No.305/1/2008-FTT dated 24.02.2011. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No.51287 of 2022 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.51047/2022 - Dated:- 18-10-2022 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the imported goods were counterfeit. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 15.05.2017 was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation and destruction of the imported goods due to violation of IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed against the appellant for the said violation. M/s. React India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, the authorized representative of the Right Holders i.e. M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vide letter dated 14.07.2017 requested for complete confiscation and destruction of the said counterfeit goods and had executed Bond for Rs.8,21,428/- and submitted FDR of Rs.2,05,357/- in relation to the above said shipment. After due adjudication proceedings, the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bond of Rights Holder-in- File C.No.VIII/6/ICD/PPG/IPR/Bond/B.G./03/193/201 24.05.2018 8. It is further urged that the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 lays down a detailed procedure to be followed by the right holders or their authorized representative as also by the Customs, for seeking suspension of release of suspect imported goods. That in the present case the Right holder s trademark registration dates back to 2001 and at that point of time usage of LED was not very common for lighting purposes in India, hence, LED Lighting Module has not been explicitly mentioned in the said registration. That, therefore, it is immaterial if Samsung does or does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding within the prescribed time limit. Thus, it is important to make sure that the right holder participates in the Customs proceedings. In case the right holder abstains, the customs have no obligation to continue with the detention and the goods shall be released forthwith, if otherwise in order. That the prescribed time limit of 10 days is binding on the department and any extension, it could only done by the Commissioner. In the instant case, no such extension is on record as the appellant has not received any order to this effect from the department. Hence, the entire proceedings have been vitiated due to the blatant violation of the strict timeline prescribed in the Rules and therefore, the provisions of IPR Rules, 2007 are not appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally observed that the Right Holder, Samsung Electronics had been given registration by the Department for their three patents vide separate UPRN nos. The release of the consignment was suspended for infringing the patent rights of the right holder consequent to the examination of the goods and on the basis of the findings in the examination. 15. The appellant have neither furnished any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the right holder has no valid registration for LED nor they have raised this issue before the court below. So far the prescribed time line is concerned, it is urged that substantial compliance of the time limitation has been prescribed. 16. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
