Imported Pirated Goods Confiscated: Lack of Evidence of Legitimacy Upheld

The appeal was dismissed as the imported CD ROMs and VCDs were deemed pirated goods, lacking evidence of legitimacy. The confiscation was upheld based on Indian Customs regulations prohibiting pirated goods import, despite norms in the exporting country. The absence of compliance with international norms, including the IFPI code, and a notification under the Customs Act further supported the decision. The appellants' failure to provide evidence contrary to the pirated nature of the goods led to the dismissal of their appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Import of pirated CD ROMs and VCDs, Confiscation of goods, Admissibility of evidence, Compliance with international norms, Prohibition of pirated goods import, Customs regulations.

Analysis:

1. Import of Pirated CD ROMs and VCDs:
The appellants imported CD ROMs and VCDs which were seized on the grounds of being pirated goods. The appellants admitted under Section 108 of the Customs Act that they had no evidence to prove the goods were not pirated. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty.

2. Confiscation of Goods:
The appellants contended that the goods were imported from Malaysia in 1999, where the industries were not obligated to print the Code number of the International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI). However, the Indian Customs, at the time of import, was concerned with the rules and regulations in India. As the import of pirated goods was prohibited in India, the confiscation of the goods was deemed justified.

3. Admissibility of Evidence:
The appellants' admission of lacking evidence to prove the goods were not pirated played a crucial role in the decision. The absence of evidence supporting the legitimacy of the imported goods weakened the appellants' case.

4. Compliance with International Norms:
The appellants argued that the manufacturers in Malaysia were not obligated to follow the international norms of IFPI. However, the judgment emphasized that the Indian Customs was primarily concerned with the regulations in force at the time of import into India, rather than the norms in the exporting country.

5. Prohibition of Pirated Goods Import:
The Revenue argued that the goods were prohibited in India as a notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act had been issued, prohibiting goods with false trademarks. The prohibition on importation of pirated goods was a significant factor leading to the confiscation of the goods.

6. Customs Regulations:
The judgment highlighted that the import of pirated goods into India was not permissible, regardless of the regulations or practices in the exporting country. The decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the fact that the goods were rightly confiscated due to their nature as pirated goods and the prohibition on their importation into India.

---