ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 18.06.2025
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Allegations of Misdeclaration Involvement
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench has set aside penalties totaling βΉ60 lakh imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged involvement in the import of counterfeit branded goods.
The Tribunal held that the appellant, being merely a shipping liner and not an importer or declarant, had neither custody nor knowledge of the goodsβ contents, and hence could not be held liable for alleged misdeclaration or intellectual property violations.
Background of the Case
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Tuticorin, intercepted three shipping containers based on intelligence inputs and discovered:
- Mobile accessories and branded cosmetics (Olay, Lakme, Loreal, etc.) undeclared in the Bill of Lading
- Branded shoes (Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc.) suspected of violating IPR laws
The goods were allegedly misdeclared in violation of:
- Section 111(d) of the Customs Act
- Legal Metrology Act, 2009
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
- Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Subsequently, the Commissioner levied penalties of βΉ25 lakh, βΉ10 lakh, and βΉ25 lakh in three separate orders against Green Port Shipping Agencies under Section 112(b) for “dealing with goods liable to confiscation.”
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
Source: CESTAT Chennai
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply