2009 (1) TMI 713 - AT - Customs

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, comprising of S/Shri P.G. Chacko and K.K. Agarwal, heard an appeal represented by Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the Appellant and Shri A.K. Prasad, JCDR, for the Respondent. The Commissioner demanded customs duty of over Rs. 3.9 crores from the appellants for imported goods over the period of March 2001 to April 2004. The goods in question, vitrified and glazed tiles, were assessed based on the retail sale price (RSP) declared in the bills of entry. The Commissioner found that the goods were sold at different MRPs, leading to the determination of the assessable value under Section 4A read with Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Commissioner also found mis-declaration of value against the assessee, justifying the extended period of limitation for recovery of differential duty and penalties.

The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties, with the counsel for the assessee arguing that goods under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act may not necessarily be assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The counsel also argued that the provisions of Section 4A only authorized one MRP for the entire goods. The JCDR resisted these arguments, citing previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee agreed to the 'first in first out' method for determining the assessable value, but the counsel requested correlation bill of entry-wise. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the arguments of the assessee were not supported by previous decisions and there was a mis-declaration of final products. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not make a clear case for complete waiver of pre-deposit or stay of recovery and directed them to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000 within four weeks. The case was pronounced in court. on 2-3-2009.