2015 (9) TMI 871

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 54,48,608/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred eight) supported with cash deposit of differential duty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) and bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) with auto renewal clause. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that vide panchnama dated 11-12.02.2015, the concerned seizing officer seized the consignment of goods imported by the petitioner namely auto motor parts under Bill of Entry No. 8242439 dated 09.02.2015 and MAWB No. 176-7496-6124 bearing an assessable value of Rs. 3,18,125.44 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the allegations that the value and description of those goods were concealed and mis-declared and furth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nting to Rs. 54,48,608/-, while rejecting the transaction value and while ignoring the earlier and contemporary import of similar goods, is not only contrary to the Valuation Rules under the Customs Act, 1962, but also contrary to the facts of the case. The abovementioned conduct of the department in putting such unreasonable onerous conditions for provisional release of the goods clearly reflects mala-fide of its officials. The apprehension/allegations of the department qua the goods in question being counterfeit in nature is an afterthought and such a submission is being made by the department with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner due to ulterior motives. 4. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 06.04.2015 issued under provisions of Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondent further contended that the petitioner has not provided the records and is not cooperating in the investigation neither in respect of the present shipment nor in respect of the past shipments. The goods are not perishable but costly parts of luxury cars such as Mercedes, BMW and Toyota etc. The representative of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. inspected the samples of spare parts and out of seven samples they found five parts genuine and two parts as counterfeit violating the Intellectual Property Rights of Mercedes Benz India. The goods in question were not seized for IPR violation but were seized for mis-dec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf." 10. On a bare perusal of Section 128 of Customs Act it is manifestly clear that an appeal lies in respect of any "decision or order passed under the Customs Act". In my view the impugned order falls within the descri....