TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pieces of 3B Glass top gas stoves and 341 cartons which contained shoes bearing brands like Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma which were not at all declared in the Bill of Entry. There were 12436 pairs of shoes and 410 pieces of gas stoves. 3. On verification of the shoes imported, it was noticed that all the shoe brands were registered with Customs for the purpose of IPR. Hence, on reasonable belief that M/s. Amar Exports have infringed the Intellectual Property Rights of above mentioned brands, samples were taken for further investigation by SIIB vide Mahazar dated 11.01.2018. The IPR holders / authorized representatives were informed and were asked to join the proceeding and verify the samples. The above said IPR holders joined the proceedings through their authorized representatives and submitted their technical reports. As per these reports, the shoes bearing brand names Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Puma were found to be counterfeit goods. The import of such counterfeit goods infringes trademark of the IPR holders and is prohibited goods as per Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 29, Section 30(3) and Section 102 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 4. The investigation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act, 1962. vi. I impose a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) on "M/s. Sunsea Shipping Agency" under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. vii. I impose a penalty of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) on Shri Solomon under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. This order is issued without prejudice to any action that may be initiated or contemplated under Customs Act, 1962 or any other act that may be in force." 6. Aggrieved, the appellants herein filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide separate orders upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, these appeals. Appeal No.: C/40356/2021 7. The Learned Counsel Dr. S. Krishnanandh appeared and argued for the appellant. He adverted to the Show Cause Notice and submitted that there is no specific allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant herein, Customs Broker, viz. M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency has, in some manner, abetted the mis-declaration of goods. In paragraph 21(ix) of Show Cause Notice it is merely alleged that the Customs Broker did not verify the Bill of Entry. It is alleged that Customs Broker did not verify the identity and functioning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) of M/s. Amar Exports was misused by the importer who is a fictitious person. The goods undeclared are IPR infringing items. M/s. Amar Exports have stated that they have not imported such goods. The appellant has obtained the documents for filing the Bill of Entry from one Shri Solomon, who feigns ignorance of the entire transaction. The appellant ought to have verified the KYC documents and antecedents of the importer. The penalty imposed is just and proper. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The main contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Dr. S. Krishnanandh, appearing for the Customs Broker, is that there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice attracting ingredient of Sec 112(a) and that the allegation would fall within the purview of the CBLR, 2018 (2013) for which penalty has already been imposed. 14. On perusal of the Show Cause Notice, sub-clause (ix) of paragraph 21 gives the allegation against the Customs Broker, reads as under:- "(ix) Further, Authorized Customs Broker M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency has not verified the antecedents of the importer before filing of Bill of Entry. Further they did not verify the identity & f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced himself as the representative of the importer. The appellant did not file the Bill-of-Entry and has not done any act in respect of clearance of goods. The appellant states that the appellant acted on behalf of one Vishal @ Jitendar Jain who had handed over the documents for transmitting to the Customs Broker. However, the Show Cause Notice does not mention the name of Vishal. She argued that the Department has not conducted any verification in regard to Vishal. None of the ingredients of Section 112(a) have been established against the appellant. In any case, the penalty imposed is very high. She prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 18. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, Shri R. Rajaraman, supported the findings in the impugned order. 19. Heard both sides. 20. On perusal of the Show Cause Notice, in paragraph 21(x), the allegation against the appellant reads as under:- "(x) Further, Shri Solomon, who represented importer and submitted the documents to Customs Broker for filing the subject Bill of Entry are also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(l),....