2016 (1) TMI 1140 - AT - Customs

MRP values - enhancement in value - different MRP values to two different bills of entries - the values being 6 and 7.5 - when the declared value is 6 in one bill of entry, is there any necessity to create anomaly to the other unless there is any cogent evidence to the contrary? - Held that - Once the declared value in one bill of entry is acceptable, there is no warrant in law to penalise the appellant adopting a different MRP for the other Bill of entry when goods are same and import took place at the same time. So far as the redemption fine is concerned, when one bill of entries was agreed to be enhanced to 6, the other declared value at 4.5 definitely is suppression of the assessable value. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed does not call for interference. Penalty of ₹ 20,000/- imposed - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Controversy over application of different MRP values to two bills of entries.
2. Discrepancy in declared values and imposition of redemption fine.
3. Penalty imposition and appeal outcomes.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the judgment revolves around the application of different Maximum Retail Price (MRP) values to two separate bills of entries. The appellant argued that the initial declared MRP value of $4.5 should not have been enhanced to $6 and subsequently to $7.5, deeming it a breach of law. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that $7.5 was the correct MRP value for the consignment, criticizing the Commissioner (Appeals) for not increasing the value to $7.5. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and concluded that when one bill of entry had a declared value of $6, it was unnecessary to create discrepancies by assigning a different MRP value to the other bill of entry without substantial evidence supporting the change. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision to adopt $6 as the MRP value for both entries, ensuring consistency and fairness in valuation.

2. The judgment also addressed the discrepancy in declared values between the two bills of entries. It was noted that penalizing the appellant for adopting a different MRP for one bill of entry when the goods were the same and imported simultaneously was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that if one bill of entry's declared value was accepted at $6, penalizing the appellant for declaring $4.5 on the other entry amounted to suppression of the assessable value, warranting the imposition of a redemption fine. Consequently, the redemption fine imposed was deemed appropriate and not subject to interference based on the circumstances of the case.

3. Lastly, the Tribunal considered the imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 20,000 due to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The penalty was upheld based on the evaluation of the case, and the appeal of the assessee was partially allowed with the penalty amount indicated. Conversely, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions made in the lower proceedings. The judgment concluded with the announcement of the outcomes and decisions made in the open court, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised throughout the case.