Case Law Details
Hari Prabhu Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Brief facts, which are relevant for my consideration, as could be gathered from hearing both sides and from perusal of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 21.08.2020, inter alia, are that M/s. Universal Exim, Old No. 204/New No. 231, Ground Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Mannady, Chennai – 600 001 (IEC No. 0415019303) had imported goods declared as “Stationery Goods” vide Bill-of-Lading dated 02.01.2018; that the said consignment was imported in container bearing number TCNU8248262 at M/s. A.S. Shipping Agencies Private Limited, Container Freight Station, No. 9, Vellalar Street, Vellapanchavadi Numbal Village, Chennai – 600 077; that as on the date of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, the importer had not filed Bill-of-Entry for clearance of the said cargo; that based on specific intelligence, the consignment was taken up for examination wherein it was observed that apart from stationery goods, the consignment also contained cosmetic items of various brands like MAC, HUDA BEAUTY, KYLIE, LAKME, MAYBELLINE, LOREAL, MATRIX, etc., as detailed in the table in ‘Annexure-1’ therein; that the consignment consisted of 108 cartons of stationery goods, 445 cartons of cosmetic items of various brands like LAKME, MAYBELLINE, LOREAL, MATRIX, etc., that were registered with the Customs for the purpose of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and 303 cartons of non-IPR infringing cosmetic items bearing various brand names like Chanlanya, Glammiere, Huda Beauty, Kylie, Kryolan, etc.; that the Revenue suspected that there was infringement of Intellectual Property Rights of some of the above brands; that the importer had mis-declared the description of the subject goods as “Stationery Goods” by unauthorizedly importing 445 cartons of cosmetic items, as indicated above, in violation of the Trademark Act, 1999, which prompted the authorities to believe that the above goods appeared to be prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Intellectual Property (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 and that consequently, the said goods were liable for confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) ibid.
4. The Officers of the SIIB, during investigation, summoned various persons and recorded statements under Section 108 ibid. and thereafter, penalties were proposed on various persons including penalties under Section 112(b) and Section 114AA ibid. on the appellant before this forum. The appellant appears to have filed a detailed reply, consequent to which Order-in-Original No. 76671/2020 dated 28.10.2020 came to be passed, whereby the appellant has been fastened only with the proposed penalty under Section 112(b) ibid. of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).
In this case findings of the Adjudicating Authority, clearly exonerates this appellant from the penal action under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for the reason that there was no material on record to prove that the appellant had submitted the fake gate pass. The above, clubbed with the earlier portion of the order of the Adjudicating Authority that there was no evidence other than the statement of one Shri R. Suresh to suggest the involvement of this appellant in the illegal removal of the subject container, clearly indicates that the appellant has been targeted for no reason whatsoever in this case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
