9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1018 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Goods cleared without affixing MRP - Held that - MRP of the imported goods had been declared in the Bill of Entry and on this basis, Additional Customs duty has been paid, the MRP had not been declared on the individual packages. According to para 5 of the General Notes of Foreign Trade Policy, when packaged commodities in respect of which the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder are applicable, the MRP at which the goods are to be sold in packaged form to the ultimate consumer is required to be declared on each package. Since in this case, there is no evidence that prior to clearance of goods, MRP has been declared on the package and in fact, no MRP stickers had been found on the packages, the provisions of ITC policy have been contravened rendering the goods liable for confiscation. Looking to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty the same are found to be reasonable - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Alleged clearance of goods without affixing MRP stickers. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Contravention of provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. Issue 1: Alleged clearance of goods without affixing MRP stickers The appellant imported various consumable items in retail packs for sale to consumers. The goods were cleared under a Bill of Entry, declaring the MRP for assessment of Additional Customs Duty. However, the jurisdictional Customs authorities found the goods without MRP stickers, alleging clearance without affixing MRP, leading to seizure under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 The Additional Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods, valuing them at Rs. 2,66,273, due to the absence of MRP stickers. The appellant was directed to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 The appellant argued that the MRP was declared in the Bill of Entry, and thus, no contravention occurred. However, it was contended that as per the Foreign Trade Policy, MRP should be declared on individual packages. The Departmental Representative defended the confiscation, citing the contravention of Import Trade Policy provisions. Issue 4: Contravention of provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy The General Notes of the Foreign Trade Policy require the declaration of MRP on each package for goods subject to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The absence of MRP stickers on the packages led to the conclusion that the Import Trade Policy provisions were contravened, justifying the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the impugned order. The failure to declare MRP on individual packages contravened the Import Trade Policy, justifying the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine and penalty imposed were deemed reasonable, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
|
