2018 (5) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1962, a consignment imported by M/s.Quick Systems (appellants in Appeal No.C/274/2011) under Bill of Entry dt. 14.7.2011 was intercepted by officers of DRI. During the course of examination, it was found that the packages in the consignment contained Chinese brand mobile phones of different make and models. The following discrepancies were also emerged. In respect of 400 nos. of cell phones their descriptions were found to be 'SOLY ELISOM' and 'SUNY ERICSSOM' which resembled international brand name of a cell phone viz. Sony Ericsson and appeared to have been imported in violation of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (IPR Rules). In respect of the 3950 cell phones, retail packages had been imported wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell phones abandoned by the importer. However, in respect of remaining 3950 nos. of cell phones, Ld. Advocate submits that the goods had not been cleared by them out of customs charge when they were intercepted; that they were already having MRP stickers to be affixed on retail packages ; that they were waiting for affixing the same after examination of the goods; that hence they have not violated any of the provisions requiring labelling of the goods; that they have subsequently registered with the Director, Legal Metrology Department and hence that discrepancy has been made good. In the circumstances, Ld.Advocate contends that the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 12,75,000/- in respect of confiscation of 3950 nos. of cell phones and i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deceptively used brand name imported in violation of IPR Rules, as the appellants themselves are not contesting the same, we do not interfere with that part of the order confiscating 400 nos. of cell phones under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. In respect of 3950 nos. of cell phones, from the facts on record, it emerges that the imported goods had obtained customs clearance and out of charge order, however they had been intercepted before they had been removed for home consumption. From this crucial fact, it well-nigh appears to reason that had the DRI officers not accepted the consignment, the impugned cell phones would have been removed as such including the 3950 cell phones without, any labelling as required under Legal ....