2015 (9) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal has been filed by Revenue against order-in-appeal dated 6.11.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under. The respondent filed Bill of Entry dated 24.2.2009 for the clearance of 300 numbers of Samsung dual SIM mobile phones valued at Rs. 37,77,824/- imported from China. On examination by Customs in the presence of CHA, the imported goods were found as per the description. Howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules, 2007. 3. Intellectual Property Right Cell (IPR Cell))/SIIB, I&G Commissionerate, New Customs House, New Delhi vide letter F. No. SIIB/Cus/I&G/IPR/15/2009 dated 12.3,2009 informed the importer regarding suspension of clearance of the above said goods, suspected to be infringing the said IPR. Accordingly, the Patent holder was also informed vide e-mail dated 12.3.2009 about the above said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i S. Ramkumar. 5. Revenue reviewed the primary adjudicating authority's order on the grounds that: (i) There was no provision in the Intellectual Property Right (imported goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 for recovering demurrage charges in the event of release of goods. (ii) The primary adjudicating authority has not indicated as to who is to recover and pay the demurrage charges. (iii) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals) further held that "it is also the case of the department that the said Rules do not provide any mechanism to recover said charges and their payment to custodian. Since, the bond is executed with the Commissioner of Customs, the authority to recover said charges from the right holder vests with the Commissioner. Absence of suitable mechanism cannot be a reason for right holder not to pay the ....