2017 (7) TMI 1321 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - suppression of facts on import in misdeclaring the MRP - non-applicability of the cited case laws relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) categorically recorded that there is no dispute in respect of description, classification and quantity of the impugned goods and the appellant had declared RSP - He, therefore, found that the adjudicating authority could not proceed to determine the MRP/RSP in absence of any enabling provisions in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand based on market inquiry
2. Applicability of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962
3. Reliance on Tribunal decisions regarding MRP assessment
4. Misdeclaration of RSP and penalty imposition

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an appeal by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the differential duty demand on imported paint items liable to CVD based on MRP. The Revenue demanded a differential duty based on market inquiry, leading to confirmation of duty amounts and confiscation of goods with the option of redemption upon payment of fines. Penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the penalties, reducing them to &8377; 35,000 each under Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The grounds of appeal by the Revenue included the legality of MRP-based assessment and the applicability of penalties. The Revenue argued that penalties should have been upheld due to misdeclarations found during market inquiry, contrary to the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Tribunal decisions, including one related to the legality of MRP-based assessment, which the Revenue contested based on pending matters in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. The respondents did not appear, and the Counsel withdrew the Vakalatnama. The case proceeded based on the records and submissions made by the Ld. AR. The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal, noting the Revenue's concerns regarding suppression of facts in misdeclaring MRP and the non-applicability of cited case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) had found no dispute regarding the goods' description, classification, and quantity, and held that determining MRP/RSP without enabling provisions was not permissible as per Tribunal decisions.

4. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the impugned order, citing the Tribunal's decision not reversed by higher authorities and the pending status of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on established legal principles and precedent, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.