TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods as Rs. 4,21,587/- which are imported from one Bhavna Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The said Bill of Entry was assessed to duty of Rs. 1,73,330/- on the enhanced value. 3. Thereafter, on intelligence, the goods were intercepted by SIIB, Imports, Nhava Sheva and 100% examination of the goods were carried out. On scrutiny of the documents, it was revealed that the appellant (importer) has not declared the complete description and brand of some of the items and same price was declared for different brands of perfumes and deodorants. In the light of the non-declaration of brands of these items and incomplete description of the goods as well as declaration of same price for different brands of perfumes and deodorants, it created a doubt about the true and accuracy of the declared value of the goods. Therefore, declared value was rejected. It was further observed that three items, namely. Dove Fresh touch Deodorant Body Spray 150 ml. Dove Moisturising cream 500 ml., and Dove Body Lotion 250 ml. bears the trade mark "Dove" which is a trade mark of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. who has registered a complaint on the imports of such goods bearing the trade mark "Dove" with the office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-II v. Hakim Hardware & General Stores - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 650 (Tri.-Mum.); (vi) R.V. Fashion v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 535 (Tri.-Mumbai); (vii) Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South India Television (P) Ltd. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); (viii) Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai v. Paras Electronics - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 231 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ix) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Lord Shiva Overseas 2005 (181) E.L.T. 213 (Tri.-Mumbai); (x) Sha Rikabdoss Bhavarlal v. Collector of Customs, Mysore - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 65 (Mad.) 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterated the impugned order and specifically submitted that during the course of adjudication, the provisions of IPR Act/Rules were complied with, therefore, the goods having the brand name 'Dove' were correctly confiscated absolutely. As per market survey, the goods were found undervalued and, therefore, the valuation resorted under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules is also correct. 7. Heard both sides and considered the submissions made by both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not give notice under Rule 3 of the Rules or does not fulfil the obligation under Rule 5, within five days from the date of suspension of clearance, the goods shall be released provided that all other conditions of import of such goods under the Customs Act, 1962, have been complied with. (5) Where the clearance of goods has been suspended, customs may, where it acts on its own initiative, seek from the right holder any information or assistance, including technical expertise and facilities for the purpose of determining whether the suspect goods are counterfeit or pirated or otherwise infringe an intellectual property right. (6) Where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, has suspended clearance of goods on his own initiative and right holder has given notice under Rule 3 of the Rules and fulfilled the obligations under Rule 5, but, the right holder or his authorised representative does not join the proceedings within a period of ten working days from the date of suspension of clearance leading to a decision on the merits of the case, the goods shall be released provided t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as set out in these rules, requesting for suspension of goods suspected to be infringing IPR. The right owner has to get registered with the Commissioner of Customs within 30 working days from the date of receipt of the notice under Rule 3(1) and from the date of expiry of the extended time as contemplated under Rule 3(4). Further, as per Rule 7(3) where the clearance of the goods suspected to be infringing the intellectual property has been suspended and the right holder or his authorised representative does not join the proceedings within a period of ten working days from the date of suspension of clearance leading to a decision on the merits of the case, the goods shall be released, provided that, all other conditions of import of such goods under the Customs Act, 1962, have been complied with, provided that the above time-limit of ten working days may be extended by another ten days in appropriate cases by the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. Rule 7(4) further prescribes that, if the right holder does not give notice under Rule 3 of the Rules or does not fulfil the obligation under Rule 5, within five days from the date of suspension of clearan....