2022 (11) TMI 808

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 filed a Bill of Entry (BE) No.8911201 dated 16.03.2017 for clearance of "LED Module Light" imported from China. The goods were assessed under CTH 94051090 and valued Rs.7,46, 752.95. During the assessment, the Appraising Group asked the appellant to submit catalogue of the imported items. After perusal, it was decided to conduct 100% examination of the goods. During examination, the imported goods were found to be LED Module Lights of brand "SAMSUNG". From the examination report, it prima facie appeared to be import of counterfeit goods violating IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as IPR Rules). 4. In accordance with the IPR Rules the matter was taken up with the right holder, M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order of confiscation and penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that the dates of imports etc. as per admitted facts are as follows:- Sr. No. Event Date 1. BE Filed 16.03.2017 2. Examination of goods 22.03.2017 3. Customs intimated Rights Holder 11.04.2017 4. Rights Holder Joins Proceedings 13.04.2017 5. Rights Holder confirms violation of IPR 19.04.2017 6. Rights Holder writes to Customs 13.05.2017 7. SCN issued against appellant 15.05.2017 8. Bond of Rights Holder-in- File C.No.VIII/6/ICD/PPG/IPR/Bond/B.G./03/193/201 24.05.2018 8. It is further urged that the Intellectual Property....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....must satisfy the requirements of Rules 3 & 5 within 5 days, and thereafter, the right holder must join the proceeding in a maximum 10 days, extendable by another 10 days, by an order from the Commissioner or an officer duly authorized by him. That in the present case, the timeline followed by the Customs clearly shows that the prescribed procedures have been violated by Customs itself. Therefore, the confiscation and penalty imposed upon the appellant are void. 11. That enforcement of the seizure is subject to the right holder joining the proceeding within the prescribed time limit. Thus, it is important to make sure that the right holder participates in the Customs proceedings. In case the right holder abstains, the customs have no obli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 13. It is further urged that this Tribunal in the case of SRK Enterprises VS. Commissioner of Customs - 2012 (280) ELT 264 has held that once it is found that time limit, which has not been followed nor Rule 3 of Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 has been complied with. Accordingly, ld. Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 14. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department relies on the impugned order and further urges that the court below have specifically observed that the Right Holder, Samsung Electronics had been given registration by the Department for their three patents vide separate UPRN nos. The release of the consignment was suspended for infringing ....