2014 (3) TMI 675 - HC - Customs

Valuation of imported hair-oil - clearance without MRP stickers - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - proprietor of the assessee had made a statement under Section 108 admitting that the items imported were covered under Schedule 3 of the items of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore, required MRP disclosure. Furthermore, the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original are entirely premised upon the goods having been seized because they were found to be without MRP stickers at the time of the search on 16.5.2008. The Order in Original as well as the Order in Appeal are categorical that such valuation attracted Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and thus, properly resulted in penalty and confiscation. After considering these aspects, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced having regard to the entire conspectus of circumstances - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Challenge to final order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding valuation of imported hair oil.
2. Allegation of goods being liable for confiscation due to missing MRP stickers.
3. Dispute over penalty and confiscation upheld by lower authorities.
4. Argument against ex parte determination and illegal search and seizure.
5. Assertion of duty discharge and objection to re-fixing prices by authorities.
6. Claim of no substantial question of law for consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested a final order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, raising a substantial question of law concerning the valuation of imported goods, including hair oil, for sale to consumers. The dispute revolved around the declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the imported goods, which was a requirement under the Customs Tariff Act, the Foreign Trade Policy, and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.

2. Customs authorities seized the goods, alleging confiscation due to missing MRP stickers, as required by law. The Additional Commissioner issued an Order in Original directing confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 2,66,273, along with a redemption fee and penalty under Section 12A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the confiscation but reduced the fine and penalty, citing contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

3. The appellant approached CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of declaring MRP on individual packages as per the Foreign Trade Policy and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty reasonable, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

4. The appellant argued against the ex parte determination, illegal search and seizure, and the imposition of penalties without proper justification. It was contended that the duty liability was fulfilled, and the authorities had no right to re-fix prices arbitrarily.

5. The High Court noted the admission by the appellant's proprietor regarding MRP disclosure requirements and the basis of seizure due to missing MRP stickers. The court upheld the lower authorities' decision on penalty and confiscation, reducing the fines considering all circumstances. The court clarified that it could not act as a third appellate authority, emphasizing the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act.

6. Ultimately, the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting consideration and dismissed the appeal without costs, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities regarding penalty, confiscation, and the valuation of imported goods.

← Previous Next →