9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OOLU8098713 pertaining to the appellant, that the container is stuffed with shoes of various brands like NIKE,ADIDAS etc., the Officers of Commissionerate of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi conducted 100% examination of the goods stuffed in this container on 05.08.2014. It was found that the declaration in Bill of Lading No. 2545557690 dated 12.04.2014 was for '361' cartons whereas actually the same were found '477 cartons'. Also Men shoes of various brands were found whereas the same were declared unbranded. The appellant in his voluntary statement dated '05.08.2014 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inter alia, admitted that the shoes of reputed brands like NIKE, ADIDAS, REEBOK and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rseas supplier vide Bill of Lading dated 12.04.2014. Such goods were examined by the Customs Officers on 05.08.2014. On examination, complete mismatch was found as regards the quantity and also as regards the description. Although, no Bill of Entry was filed but the description in the Bill of Lading was 'unbranded shoes' whereas branded and shoes of reputed brand(s) were also found. Upon enquiry, the brand/right holders confirmed that the branded shoes were counterfeit and the imported in violation IPR enforcement Rules, 2007. Mr. Harpreet Singh proprietor of D.J. Imports did not join investigation and failed to appear in spite of three summons. Thus, the malafide on the part of the Appellant (Importer) was established. It was also held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.08.2014 and his statement was recorded, wherein he inter alia stated that he is in the business of importing shoes mainly from China, the details of goods as per invoice and packing list is Men's Shoes Unbranded. The Supplier have packed the goods as per his convenience and thus there is mismatch in the quantity as well as the declaration in the shipping documents. On coming to know about the mistake in dispatch by the Shipper, the Appellant (Importer) under information to the Shipper, have not filed the Bill of Entry. The consignment also contained shoes of reputed brands for which he had not placed order, also informed that he has not made any pyment so far, as shipper extended credit for 180 days. It is further urged that this Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has not been able to make out a case against the Appellant that they are the importers, and since no duty can be demanded from any other person, other than the importer, the order demanding duty etc. was set aside. Thus, only for the reason that the Appellant was named as consignee in the Bill of Lading, than cannot be subjected to penalty. Thus, none of the violation as stipulated in Section 111 of the Act are attracted, and in absence of violation of any provision of Section 111, no penalty is imposable under Section 112 of the Act. Further, assails relying on the impugned order, no particular Section has been identified, which have been violated. 7. It is further urged that the penalty provision under Section 117 is applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
