Case Law Details
Sun Sea Shipping Agency Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The goods are counterfeit and have been confiscated. However, penalty u/s 112(a) being on higher side is reduced
Facts- The assessee filed a Bill of Entry dated 22.12.2017 through their Customs Broker M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency for the clearance of import consignment in which the goods were declared as ‘3B Glass Top Gas Stove (Unbranded)’. On verification it was found that the consignment contained 410 pieces of 3B Glass Top and 341 cartons of shoes bearing brand names Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma. The import of such counterfeit goods infringes trademark of the IPR holders and is prohibited goods as per Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 29, Section 30(3) and Section 102 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The revenue confiscated the 12436 pairs of shoes and imposed a penalty under section 112(a) of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order and accordingly being aggrieved the assessee preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- I am convinced that steps for filing the Bill-of-Entry would not have taken place unless the documents were handed over by the appellant herein. The goods are counterfeit and have been confiscated. It is also alleged that he has taken back the documents from the Customs Broker. For these reasons, I hold that the findings of the authorities below, that the appellant has acted in relation to improper importation of goods, does not call for interference. However, in the present case, he had no liability to pay duty. The penalty of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) imposed on Shri C. Solomon Selvaraj is on the higher side and requires to be reduced. I hold that a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the penalty from Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- only.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
