<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (3) TMI 464 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450683</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld absolute confiscation of imported shoes bearing UCB logo and ROCK brand name due to mis-declaration and trademark infringement. The appellant failed to declare branded goods in import documents and lacked authorization to use the trademarks. Benetton India Ltd was established as rightful holder of UCB logo for footwear. UCB-branded shoes were deemed prohibited counterfeit goods subject to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). ROCK-branded shoes, being non-prohibited, were subject to redemption fine under Section 125. Penalties under Sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA were upheld. IPR Rules time limits were held directory rather than mandatory. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 19:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 464 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450683</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld absolute confiscation of imported shoes bearing UCB logo and ROCK brand name due to mis-declaration and trademark infringement. The appellant failed to declare branded goods in import documents and lacked authorization to use the trademarks. Benetton India Ltd was established as rightful holder of UCB logo for footwear. UCB-branded shoes were deemed prohibited counterfeit goods subject to absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). ROCK-branded shoes, being non-prohibited, were subject to redemption fine under Section 125. Penalties under Sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA were upheld. IPR Rules time limits were held directory rather than mandatory. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>