Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. Himachal Exim

2017 (1) TMI 1349 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Import of prohibited goods - branded shoes and toys - eye liners/eye brow pencils - confiscation of goods with imposition of fine and penalty - Held that: - goods are alleged to have been imported in violation of section 111(d), (i) and (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and prohibited for import under section 11 of Customs Act, 1962. But the fact remains that the proceedings in this case was declared illegal, null and void by the first appellate authority finding that the adjudication proceedings have no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

echnical Member Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Shri B. Satish Sundar, Advoate for the Respondent ORDER Per Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.3/2014 dated 24.10.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that:- M/s. Himachal Exim filed two bills of entry viz. 8960783 and 8960784 both dated 7.1.2013 declaring the goods as toys; shoes of various sizes with brand names NIKE & ADIDAS and glimmer stick/ eye liner for eyes / lips .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the goods due to the mis declaration and redetermined the value at ₹ 86,630/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 . The CVD was quantified on the basis of the Maximum Retail Price The eye brow pencils totally valued at ₹ 2,37,136/- were confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1 lakh. The LAA has stated that the appellant has accepted the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngs nor has fulfilled the conditions of registration as provided under Rule 5 of the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007. The LAA has held that in the case of Adidas brand, there will be a concurrent application of Notification No. 47/2007- Cus NT dated 8.5.2007 and Notification No. 51/2010 Cus. NT since they have joined the proceedings and in the case of Nike brand the Notification No. 51/2010 Cus NT dated 30.6.2010 shall apply independently. Based on that the LAA has held that all the shoes bearing Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fine of ₹ 2,00,000/-. Penalties of ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2,50,000/- were imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1926 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. 3. The above order was challenged by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, we have heard learned Authorized Representati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in toys and shoes with brand name Nike and Adidas . The goods under Bill of Entry No. 8960784 dated 7.1.2013 were examined on 181.2013 and were found to contain toys and shoes with brand name Nike and Adidas . Moreover, this consignment also contained cosmetics like glimmer sticks for eyes, eye liner pencils, eye liner pens etc. 6. The matter had reached to the Hon ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 32237 of 2014 filed by respondent herein. Hon ble High Court vide its order dated. 3.2.2015 obs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. Against this order, department preferred Review Petition No. 58/2015 and the respondent herein also preferred a Contempt Petition No. 844/2015 in the same matter. Vide a common order dated 8.10.2015, both the petitions were disposed by the Hon ble High Court inter alia with the following directions:- 13. As regards the review, though there is no apparent error on record since the order d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mittedly, is available to the customs department till 17/02/2015, however, the order under review has been passed as if the order impugned in the writ petition has become final since there was no appeal by that time, which is factually incorrect and further, the period prescribed for filing appeal in the statute is still available to the customs department. It is to be noted that on several occasions, taking note of the fact that the writ petitions are pending without exhausting the appeal remed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version