9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011 regarding the exemption from levy of CVD on MRP basis for imported adhesives sold in 5/8 grams packing. The main contention is whether the products imported by the appellant, sold on a number basis, fall within the purview of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules, 2011. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Interpretation of Legal Metrology Rules The appellant imported adhesives in 5/8 grams packing and claimed exemption from CVD on MRP basis under Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011. The lower appellate authority rejected the claim stating that the products were sold on a number basis, not by weight, hence Rule 26 did not apply. The appellant argued that the Act and Rules apply to pre-packaged commodities, and as the products were in semi-solid form with declared net weight, they fell under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The Tribunal agreed, stating that there was no statutory requirement to declare the RSP on the package, and CVD assessment should be based on transaction value, not RSP. Issue 2: Pre-Packaged Commodity Definition The Tribunal examined the declarations made by the appellant regarding the net weight of the adhesives in the packages. The goods were in semi-solid form, and the descriptions on commercial invoices and packing lists complied with the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules, 2011. As the goods were pre-packaged commodities, Rule 26 exempted them from declaring the RSP, leading to CVD assessment based on transaction value. Issue 3: Precedents and Tribunal Decisions The Tribunal cited previous cases involving similar products like glues and cosmetics where the net weight was less than 10 grams, leading to exemption from declaring MRP under relevant rules. These precedents supported the appellant's contention that the assessment of CVD should be based on transaction value for goods with net weight below 10 grams. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief, as the appellant's imported adhesives fell within the exemption provided by Rule 26 of the Legal Metrology Rules, 2011. The assessment of CVD was directed to be based on the transaction price, not the RSP, in line with the statutory provisions and precedents cited. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the Judges in this case.
|
