2006 (6) TMI 499 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 5/99 regarding the declaration of retail prices on imported Television sets.
2. Dispute over whether the importer or the foreign supplier should affix the retail price on packages at the time of clearance.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 5/99:
The appellants imported Television sets and paid CVD at 16% as per Sr. No. 225(i) of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. This notification prescribed duty at 16% when the retail sale price is declared on the packages at the time of clearance from the factory of production and when such declared price is the sole consideration for sale to the ultimate consumer. The Revenue denied the benefit of the notification to the appellants, arguing that the retail prices were marked on the packages at the overseas factory of production in Japan, whereas the Revenue contended that the importer should make such declaration at the time of clearance in the country of importation.

2. Affixing of Retail Price on Packages:
The appellants relied on a previous case, Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, where it was held that the importer is not required to make the declaration of retail prices on packages alone. The Tribunal in the Viacom case stated that the importer's role is to ensure the appropriate declaration is made when the goods are imported, and instructing suppliers to affix the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) before arrival in India does not violate Rule 33(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The appellants argued that their case was similar to the Viacom case, involving TV sets and a CVD rate of 16% under Entry No. 225 of Notification No. 5/95.

3. Tribunal Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellants' case was squarely covered by the decision in the Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. case. Consequently, the Tribunal followed the Viacom precedent, allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). This decision reaffirmed that the importer's responsibility is to ensure proper declaration of retail prices on imported goods, and it does not necessarily require the importer to affix the prices themselves at the time of clearance.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of interpretation of the Central Excise Notification and the dispute over affixing retail prices on imported goods, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and its reasoning based on relevant legal precedents.