TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d appeal. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the ld. adjudicating authority and disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein by rejecting the same. The ld. adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original No. KOL/CUS/PORT/(JC)/Gr.3/42/2023 dated 11th April, 2023 had ordered re-classification of the imported goods apart from directing confiscation of 9,360 pairs of 'All Sky (Local Brand)' Gents Shoes, 240 pairs of 'D&B' brand Gents Shoes and 300 pairs of 'Eleprint' brand Gents Shoes under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Shoes marked as "Made in Vietnam" ----- 140 pairs (D) D&B (Dibu) brand Shoes ----- 240 pairs (E) Eleprint brand Shoes ----- 300 pairs Total 10,610 pairs (100 pairs of shoes were found short with reference to declared quantity) 4. It is the case of the Revenue that the imported goods at Sl. Nos. (B) and (C) above were registered in terms of Rule 4 of the Notification No. 47/2007Cus.(N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 and had violated the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Rules, for which purpose a Notice under Rule 7(2) of the Rules was issued to the right holders; the goods were got inspected by the right holders and a technical report obtained. The same was relied upon by the Revenue and has been mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hange in classification would not materially bring out any consequential change in the duty quantum leviable thereon as BCD under the two Tariff Heads continues to be leviable at the rate of 35% ad valorem. It is therefore the case of the appellant that as there is no change in the rate of duty, no malafides can be attached to them for the purported wrong classification. 7.2. They have further submitted that they had no malafide intentions in importing any goods other than those stated by Shri Shital Kumar Saha in his testimony before the authorities, who, upon enquiry from the overseas supplier, had submitted before the authorities that it was a mistake on the part of the suppliers; therefore, no malafide could be attached to the import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We further note that no notice was issued in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules and obligations under Rule 5 of the said Rules remained unfulfilled; accordingly, the appellant has prayed that the said goods should have been released to them in terms of Rule 7(4), there being no ground to confiscate these goods. 8. We also note that the impugned order passed by the ld. adjudicating authority is completely silent with regard to the confiscation of 9,360 pairs of 'All Sky' brand Gents Shoes, 240 pairs of 'D&B' brand Gents Shoes and 300 pairs of 'Eleprint' brand Gents Shoes. There is not a word as to why the said goods have been confiscated. In the absence thereof, such confiscation is no more than arbitrary and therefore, cannot be sustained. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, we are of the view that the said non-offending goods are not liable for confiscation and the importer cannot be subjected to levy of redemption fine thereagainst. 10. Though the appellant has taken the plea that the process of ascertainment of the violation of Intellectual Property Rights of the right holders was carried out at the back of the appellant, they have however not disputed the plea or the fact of violation in this regard. Moreover, the supplier's response that the same were loaded by an error of judgement / mistake, therefore, clearly goes in to establish that but of course there has been an infringement of the IPR provisions. Nonetheless, the fact remains that no mala fides can be attached to the appellant-importer unde....