2019 (6) TMI 1530 - AT - Customs

Short payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) - import of chocolates/cream wafers etc. - Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the disputed Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant on 29.06.2005 and out of charge order was issued by the department on 16.07.2005. Insofar as levy of CVD and assessment of goods on the basis of MRP is concerned, the Central Government vide Notification No. 2/2006 C.E. (N.T.), dated 06.03.2006 has brought certain specified goods for such levy. Since the period of import is prior to the date of issuance of the notification and there is no specific mention that such notification will have the retrospective effect, such notification shall not be applicable to the case in hand for MRP based assessment. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Short payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) on imported goods
- Requirement of affixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on goods meant for sale to ultimate consumers
- Applicability of Notification No. 2/2006 for MRP-based assessment

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in importing chocolates and food preparations, facing allegations of short payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) on certain goods. The department contended that the appellant was obligated to pay CVD based on the RSP/MRP of goods meant for sale to ultimate consumers. However, it was revealed during examination that the goods were actually sold to intermediaries in wholesale packages, not directly to consumers. This fact, coupled with the absence of MRP/RSP on wholesale packages, indicated that the imported goods were not intended for direct sale to end consumers, thereby negating the requirement of affixing MRP/RSP as per relevant regulations.

Regarding the specific Bill of Entry in question, filed before the issuance of Notification No. 2/2006, the Tribunal held that the notification, which specified goods for MRP-based assessment, could not be applied retrospectively to imports made prior to its issuance. As a result, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable under the law and set it aside, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the timing and applicability of relevant notifications in customs assessments, ensuring that retrospective effects are appropriately addressed to uphold legal principles and fairness in duty levies.