9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief facts of the case are that M/s Vidhata Overseas, B-106, First Floor, Vikas Tower, PVR Compex, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, filed Bill of Entry No. 0000207 dated 26.07.2016 for Home Consumption at Arshiya Supply Chain Management (P) Ltd. FTWZ, Khurja, for clearance of imported goods declared as Mobile Phones, Ear Phones, Charger, Battery, Cards for DTH, accessories of electronic items, Power Bank, watches (other than reputed Brand), Pen Drive ( Other than reputed Brand) and Pen (Other than reputed Brand), as declared in invoice No.ALL-20160512 claiming the classification under Chapter 85, 91 & 96. The said goods were supplied by M/s Golden Life (HK), AU PUIWAN Street FO Tan NT, Hong Kong. The goods covered by said Bill of entry were in Containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt from the brand owner was followed. For the said purpose Ms. Gurpreet Gulati, Advocate & IPR Consultant from M/s React India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon authorized on behalf of brand owner Apple, Samsung & Michael Kors & M/s Anand & Anand were requested to inspect the seized goods. On inspection they submitted technical analysis report that the goods were counterfeit. Therefore, appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 27.03.2017. There was a proposal to reject the declared assessable value of Rs. 2,03,75,122/- and enhanced the value of the said goods to Rs. 10,63,05,550/- under Rule 12 read with Rule 7 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Through the said show cause notice M/s Vidhata Overseas w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. He further recorded that declared value of mobile phones was US$ 2.0 to US$ 3.5 which was found to be grossly undervalued. Therefore, as provided under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 he has ordered enhancement of value to Rs. 10,63,05,550/-. Further, the goods were found to be counterfeit, therefore, they were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, the remaining goods were found to be mis-declared in terms of value and, therefore, they were confiscated under Section 111(m) ibid. In view of the same he has passed the order which is reproduced below:- "7.1 I reject the declared assessable value amounting to Rs.2,03,75,122/- (Two Crores Three Lakhs Seventy five Thousand One Hundred Twenty two only) in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are before this Tribunal. Heard Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that said goods were imported for self-use. Subsequently, he submitted that said goods were imported for re-export to Dubai. Further he submitted that Bill of entry under Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 was not filed, therefore, they were not liable for examination by Customs authorities. Further on being asked by the Bench as to who the importer was and he replied that M/s Vidhata Overseas was the importer. On being asked as to in that case why M/s Arshiya Supply Chain Management (P) Ltd. filed the Bill of entry who was not the owner of the goods, he could not reply anything. 5. Heard the learned AR who has submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
