Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Suspension of clearance of goods - Infringement of IPR - contravention of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 47/2007-Cus.(NT) dated 8.5.2007 - Held that:- DR is not able to explain as to how Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) which allowed enforcement of bond executed by the right holder for recovering of demurrage charges. The grounds of appeal are identical to the grounds advanced by Reven .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er. In these circumstances, we are of the view that Revenue cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal and consequently has no right to file an appeal there-against under Section 129A of the Customs Act under which only a person aggrieved by the impugned order can file appeal - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/12/2010-CU(DB) - F. Order No.52173/2015 - Dated:- 1-7-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. For The Responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eared to be in violation of the Intellectual Property Rights under patent No. 214388 dated 11.2.2008 granted to Shri S. Ramkumar by Patent office, Chennai. The said patent was registered in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, IPR Cell, Chennai Airport, Air Cargo Complex, Meenabakkam, Chennai-600027 and allotted registration no. UPR No. A01671NMAA4PR. Therefore, the import of 300 piece of mobile phones with dual SIM cards appeared to be in contravention of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected to be infringing the said IPR. Accordingly, the Patent holder was also informed vide e-mail dated 12.3.2009 about the above said import of dual SIM mobile phones and asked to execute a consignment specific Bond (equal to 110% of the value of infringing goods as specified in para 7 of Notification No. 47/2007-CUS(NT) dated 8.5.2007. The patent holder executed the required bond. 4. The proceedings initiated in respect of said Bill of Entry were eventually dropped and mobile phones imported b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s order on the grounds that: (i) There was no provision in the Intellectual Property Right (imported goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 for recovering demurrage charges in the event of release of goods. (ii) The primary adjudicating authority has not indicated as to who is to recover and pay the demurrage charges. (iii) As the security has been furnished in favour of the Commissioner of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs cannot enforce the security to reimburse the demurrage to the importer. 6. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version