TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government upholds decision to confiscate fake watches, penalties imposed for customs violations</h1> The government upheld the decision to confiscate the dutiable goods and fake watches, imposing penalties on the applicant for customs violations. Despite ... Import of Baggage - Import of dutiable goods, fake watches and 6 cartons of Cigarettes - Imposition of redemption fine & penalty - Violation of Copyright Act, 1957 and IPR Regulation of India Baggage Rules, 1998, Sections 77, 79, 11 of Customs Act, 1962, para 2.20 of FTP 2009-2014 and also the provision of Section 11(1) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Now in this revision application the applicant has pleaded to release the wrist watches on payment of redemption fine for home consumption or re-export. The applicant has contended that the wrist watches were not fake but manufactured in China hence may be released. Held that:- Applicant in his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 has admitted the wrist watches were fake. Import of duplicate or fake goods are prohibited under the provision of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and IPR Regulation. Keeping in view the above circumstances, there is no merit in the pleading of the applicant. Government do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and therefore upholds the same. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:1. Import of commercial goods through green channel.2. Confiscation and penalties under Customs Act, 1962.3. Appeal against the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.4. Revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962.5. Claim of wrist watches not being fake.6. Admittance of fake goods by the applicant.7. Request for release of wrist watches on payment of redemption fine.Issue 1: Import of commercial goods through green channelThe applicant arrived at the airport from abroad and attempted to clear himself through the green channel, but was intercepted by Customs Officers. Upon examination, dutiable goods and fake watches of commercial nature were discovered, violating various customs regulations and acts. The goods were not considered part of bona fide baggage as per Customs Act, 1962.Issue 2: Confiscation and penalties under Customs Act, 1962The adjudicating authority confiscated the dutiable goods and absolutely confiscated the cigarettes and fake watches under specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed on the applicant under relevant sections of the Act for the violations.Issue 3: Appeal against the Order-in-Original and Order-in-AppealThe applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the Order-in-Original, which was subsequently dismissed, leading to further dissatisfaction and the filing of a revision application.Issue 4: Revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962The applicant sought revision of the impugned Order-in-Appeal before the Central Government, presenting various grounds including the claim of importing goods for the first time and requesting a reduction in personal penalty.Issue 5: Claim of wrist watches not being fakeIn the revision application, the applicant argued that the wrist watches were not fake but manufactured in China, suggesting they could be released for re-export under certain conditions.Issue 6: Admittance of fake goods by the applicantThe government noted that the applicant had admitted in a voluntary statement that the wrist watches were indeed fake, which is prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and IPR Regulation.Issue 7: Request for release of wrist watches on payment of redemption fineDespite the applicant's plea for releasing the wrist watches on payment of redemption fine for home consumption or re-export, the government found no merit in the claim, upholding the decisions of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).In conclusion, the revision application was disposed of with the government upholding the impugned Order-in-Appeal and rejecting the applicant's pleas regarding the release of the wrist watches.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
