2010 (6) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant has filed against the order of absolute confiscation of 850 pieces of counterfeit Nokia E 51 Mobile Phones and the penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant has filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods 850 pieces of 'Mobile Phones E-51 (NOKIA) single SIM (without accessories)' of Chinese origin.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he examination report has not issued by the owner of the mobile company i.e. M/s. Nokia Ltd. It was a letter of an Advocate, which cannot be taken as an evidence against the appellant and the import of mobile phones is a free item and the country of origin has mentioned in the Bill of Entry does not make any impact on duty demand and submitted that the impugned order is based on wrong evidence. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een declared wrongly in the bills of entry. Moreover, investigation it was found that the IMEI number, which were mentioned in the impugned goods were never issued by Nokia Ltd. Hence, these goods are counterfeit and the appellant has involved in this case with prior knowledge. Hence, the penalties also liable to be confirmed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case, I find that the appellant h....