2009 (6) TMI 735 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment in respect of Additional duty of Customs based on changes in the declared RSP.
2. Contention regarding alteration of RSP and applicability of Central Excise duty.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to investigate and decide the case.
4. Allegations of misdeclaration of value, contravention of provisions, and liability to penalty and duty.
5. Import of Spray Paints and manipulation of MRP leading to evasion of duty.

Issue 1: Revision of assessment in respect of Additional duty of Customs based on changes in the declared RSP:
The case involved a stay petition filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which rejected the declared RSP in 33 Bills of Entry and redetermined the RSP for assessment of CVD under relevant Acts. The Commissioner confirmed the differential amount of duty, imposed penalties, and ordered appropriation and encashment of bank guarantees. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the declared RSP and the actual selling price, indicating a manipulation of the MRP to evade duty. The applicants were directed to pre-deposit the entire duty, interest, and penalty within a specified timeframe.

Issue 2: Contention regarding alteration of RSP and applicability of Central Excise duty:
The applicants argued that altering the RSP falls under the purview of Central Excise duty, not Customs duty, as specified in the Central Excise Act. They claimed that some alterations were made to accommodate dealer requests and disputed the Commissioner's order regarding bank guarantees. However, the Tribunal found evidence of deliberate manipulation of RSP to evade duty, leading to a directive for pre-deposit of dues.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to investigate and decide the case:
The Customs Authorities were deemed to have jurisdiction to investigate the case based on alleged contraventions of various Acts and rules related to misdeclaration of value, import contraventions, and non-registration with the Central Excise Department. The Tribunal upheld the authority of Customs to take action in such cases.

Issue 4: Allegations of misdeclaration of value, contravention of provisions, and liability to penalty and duty:
The Commissioner's findings of misdeclaration of value, contravention of provisions, and liability to penalty and duty were supported by the JDR, who highlighted the applicant's actions as violating relevant laws. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision and emphasized the seriousness of the manipulation of RSP to evade duty.

Issue 5: Import of Spray Paints and manipulation of MRP leading to evasion of duty:
The case involved the import of Spray Paints with discrepancies in the declared RSP and actual selling price. Evidence pointed to deliberate manipulation of MRP stickers after clearance to evade duty payment. The Tribunal found the applicants liable for duty evasion and directed them to comply with pre-deposit requirements to avoid further consequences.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, findings, and directives given by the Tribunal regarding the revision of assessment, alteration of RSP, jurisdiction of Customs Authorities, misdeclaration of value, and manipulation of MRP in the import of Spray Paints.