TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the CA, 1962 - appeal allowed in part. - C/53309/2014-CU(DB) - Final Order No. 50145/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and V. Padmanabhan, Member (T) Shri Prabhjyoti Chadha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Sheoram, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)]. - The appeal is directed against the order dated 19-3-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), IGI Airport, New Delhi. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 8343806, dated 29-10-2012 and declared import of unbranded motorcycle parts. On the basis of prior intelligence, Customs Officers, on 100% examination of the imported goods, found that the imported goods were actually branded ones. Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, they prayed that permission may be granted for re-export of the goods to the supplier. They further relied on the following case laws, wherein the export of wrongly supplied goods has been permitted : (i) Regal Impex v. Commissioner of Cus. ICD, TKD. N. Delhi - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 835 (Tri. - Del.) (ii) Srikant Bagla v. Commissioner of Customs (Port) - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 525 (Cal.) (iii) Farookh S. Todywalla v. Commissioner - 2015 (323) E.L.T. A72 (S.C.) (iv) Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. and S.T., Ghaziabad v. Met Trade (India) Ltd. - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 131. 3. Heard Shri Prabhjyoti K. Chadha, learned Advocate, as well as Dr. S.K. Sheoran, learned Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip if the goods are not re-exported. 7. We have gone through case laws relied upon by the appellant and find that in these cases, re-export has been permitted in the cases of wrong consignment. In the present case, however, we find that the wrong supply has been made of goods bearing counterfeit brand name. This involves not only mis-declaration of imported goods, but also infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. We are of the view that since the exporter is willing to take back the wrongly supplied goods, the same should be permitted. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on the importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
