Tribunal Rules on Customs Act Appeal: IPR Infringement Confirmed, Penalties Set Aside

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the prohibition of imported goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Rule 6 of the IPR Rules due to infringement of registered IPRs. It confirmed the confiscation of goods under various sections of the Customs Act for IPR violations and mis-declaration of value. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance by Right Holders and justified the re-determination of declared value through a joint market survey. Penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were not simultaneously imposed as per legal provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prohibition of imported goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 6 of IPR Rules.
2. Suspension of clearance of goods under Rule 7(1)(a) or Rule 7(1)(b) of IPR Rules.
3. Compliance of Right Holders with procedural timelines.
4. Rejection and re-determination of declared value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Legality of absolute confiscation of goods with unregistered marks but containing registered IPR marks.
7. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125(1) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
8. Simultaneous imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prohibition of Imported Goods:
The Tribunal held that the imported goods were prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 6 of the IPR Rules, as they infringed registered IPRs of brands like Puma and Adidas. The presence of additional unregistered logos did not negate the infringement of registered IPRs.

2. Suspension of Clearance:
The Tribunal clarified that the suspension of clearance was based on the registered IPRs under Rule 7(1)(a) and not on the Deputy Commissioner’s own initiative under Rule 7(1)(b). The goods were initially seized based on mis-declaration and subsequently warehoused and examined for IPR violations.

3. Compliance of Right Holders:
The Tribunal found that the Right Holders joined the proceedings within the stipulated ten days. The requirement was to join the proceedings, not necessarily to execute a consignment-specific bond within ten days. Hence, the proceedings were not vitiated.

4. Rejection and Re-determination of Declared Value:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the declared value and its re-determination through a joint market survey. The appellant’s own admission that the imported goods were different from the declared ones justified the re-determination. The market survey method, suggested by the appellant, was accepted and implemented.

5. Confiscation of Goods:
The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act. The counterfeit goods were rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) and (l) due to IPR violations, while other goods were confiscated under Section 111(l) and (m) for mis-declaration of value.

6. Absolute Confiscation of Goods:
The Tribunal held that the goods with unregistered marks but also containing registered IPR marks (like Trefoil and three stripes) were rightly confiscated. The presence of registered IPR marks made the import of these goods prohibited under Rule 6.

7. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Tribunal found the imposition of a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 under Section 125(1) reasonable. However, it noted that simultaneous penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were not permissible as per the fifth proviso to Section 114A.

8. Simultaneous Imposition of Penalties:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A, upholding the penalty under Section 112, as simultaneous imposition of penalties under both sections was not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A, while the remaining parts of the impugned order were upheld. The Tribunal’s decision emphasized adherence to procedural rules and justified the actions taken based on the appellant’s admissions and the joint market survey.

---