2017 (1) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri S.K. Sheoram, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)]. - The appeal is directed against the order dated 19-3-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), IGI Airport, New Delhi. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 8343806, dated 29-10-2012 and declared import of unbranded motorcycle parts. On the basis of prior intelligence, Customs O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd demanded differential Custom duty as well as imposed penalties. When the order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), he did not interfere with the confiscation of counterfeit goods. However, in respect of horns, the redemption fine and penalties were reduced. He upheld the re-determination of value for the horns. 2. In the present appeal the appellant has submitted that the supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Bagla v. Commissioner of Customs (Port) - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 525 (Cal.)  (iii)   Farookh S. Todywalla v. Commissioner - 2015 (323) E.L.T. A72 (S.C.)  (iv)   Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. and S.T., Ghaziabad v. Met Trade (India) Ltd. - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 131. 3. Heard Shri Prabhjyoti K. Chadha, learned Advocate, as well as Dr. S.K. Sheoran, learned Departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation, the goods were found to bear a brand name. Consequently, misdeclaration of the imported goods stands established and the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard, the findings by both the authorities below merit no interference. 6. The appellant has submitted correspondence with the supplier, who has admitted that wro....