2006 (12) TMI 278 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of imported dry cell batteries under Sections 111(d) and 112(m) of Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine, personal penalty, assessment for CVD basis of MRP, dispute over country of origin declaration, legal interpretation of trade mark provisions, confiscation under Section 111(m) for misdeclaration of MRP, reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Confiscation under Section 111(d):
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the confiscation of imported dry cell batteries under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the failure to declare the country of origin correctly. The batteries were labeled as manufactured in China but showed the manufacturer's name and address in India, violating the requirement. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the appellant, who repacked the batteries in India, could be considered the manufacturer. The Trade Mark provisions mandate the indication of the actual manufacturer's name and address on the goods, leading to the confirmation of confiscation.

Confiscation under Section 111(m):
Regarding confiscation under Section 111(m) for misdeclaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP), the Tribunal affirmed the decision based on the importer's failure to declare the MRP of the batteries. The appellant contended that the issue was a legal interpretation matter, not a deliberate misdeclaration. Despite this, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty considering the appellant's past imports without objections, demurrages incurred, and willingness to pay the differential CVD. The MRP was determined at Rs. 8/- per piece after considering a discount of Rs. 2/- for packing and testing charges.

Redemption Fine and Penalty Reduction:
The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 54,80,000/- to Rs. 11.50 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to the bona fide dispute over legal interpretation, lack of previous objections by Revenue, demurrages, and the appellant's agreement to pay the differential CVD. Despite the modifications in the quantum of the fine and penalties, the appeal was rejected, maintaining the decision on other aspects of the case.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed issues related to the confiscation of imported dry cell batteries under Customs Act provisions, dispute over country of origin declaration, misdeclaration of MRP, legal interpretation of trade mark provisions, and the subsequent reduction of redemption fine and penalty based on various considerations and arguments presented during the proceedings.