2013 (10) TMI 338 - AT - Customs

Import of deodorant at Tuticorin port which was not allowed - non Fixation of MRP Undervaluation Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - From the adjudication order, we note that differential duty is determined at Rs.8,04,175/-. There is a redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs and personal penalty of Rs.5 lakhs - dues adjudged itself is only around Rs.15 lakhs - As against that, applicants have been made to execute a bank guarantee of Rs.25 lakhs which was not a fair and arrangement for release of the goods - the valuation of the goods also needs to be examined in view of the issues being pointed out by the applicant - we consider it proper to waive pre-deposit of dues arising from the order for admission of appeal - It is so ordered subject to the condition that the bank guarantee is kept alive till disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

Issues involved:
Import of deodorants at Tuticorin port, non-declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP), compliance with public notice, undervaluation of goods.

Analysis:

Import of deodorants at Tuticorin port:
The applicant imported deodorants at Tuticorin port, which was not among the specified ports where deodorant import was permitted. The Revenue raised concerns regarding this issue and initiated proceedings against the applicant. The applicant argued that they were unaware of the restriction and had previously imported similar goods without issue. They also highlighted the approval obtained from the Additional Drug Controller, Chennai, for release of the goods. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and decided to waive the pre-deposit of dues for admitting the appeal, with a condition to keep the bank guarantee active until the appeal's disposal.

Non-declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP):
The Revenue contended that the MRP of the imported goods was not declared in the bill of entry or affixed on the retail packages, leading to inquiries by the department to ascertain the MRP for assessment purposes. The applicant argued that the MRP was affixed before clearance for home consumption from the Customs Warehouse, emphasizing that this was not a significant issue. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments but focused on the valuation of goods and the fairness of the pre-deposit amount, ultimately deciding to allow the appeal without pre-deposit, with a stay on the collection of dues during the appeal process.

Compliance with public notice:
Another ground raised by the Revenue was the non-compliance with a public notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) regarding the affixing of MRP on retail packages. The applicant's advocate presented arguments regarding the quantity of goods imported and the comparison with bills of entry filed at Mumbai Custom House to support their case. The Tribunal, while considering these submissions, primarily focused on the valuation discrepancies and the adequacy of the pre-deposit amount in deciding to admit the appeal without pre-deposit.

Undervaluation of goods:
The Revenue alleged undervaluation of the imported goods by comparing them to identical goods imported by other importers at Chennai port. The applicant contested this claim by highlighting the difference in quantities imported and presenting bills of entry from Mumbai Custom House showing similar declared values. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal, emphasizing the need to reexamine the valuation of the goods in light of the issues raised by the applicant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case addressed various issues related to the importation of deodorants at Tuticorin port, non-declaration of MRP, compliance with public notices, and undervaluation of goods. The decision to allow the appeal without pre-deposit, with a stay on the collection of dues during the appeal process, was primarily based on the valuation discrepancies and the fairness of the pre-deposit amount in relation to the adjudged dues.

← Previous Next →