2016 (11) TMI 263 - AT - Customs

Levy of Additional customs duty - import of 29 color television sets - benefit of N/N. 5/99-C.Ex. - declared MRP/RSP value - Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Held that - provisions of Notification 5/99 seeks to impose CVD if the retail sale price is declared on the package. When the retail sale price tag is affixed by the supplier situated abroad or the same is affixed on landing in India, the provisions make it amply clear that countervailing duty needs to be discharged on the basis of MRP/RSP declared. Yet another angle to the entire case would be assuming that the overseas supplier has not affixed the MRP/RSP the goods would not have been cleared by the Customs department as the product colour television sets is covered under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and would have been confiscated. The Indian Metrological Department would have insisted upon affixing MRP in the customs bonded area. In that case the CVD would have been discharged on the MRP/RSP sticker affixed by the importer - demand of additional duty not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Additional customs duty leviable on imported 29" colour television sets

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case pertains to the additional customs duty leviable on imported 29" colour television sets. The appellant had initially classified the goods under CETH 8529.90 and paid 16% CVD as per a specific notification. However, a demand for less charge was issued later, stating that the benefit of the notification was not applicable as the MRP/RSP was affixed on the television sets when they were imported. Both lower authorities ruled against the appellant, leading to this appeal.

2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and the duty implications based on the MRP/RSP declared on the imported colour television sets. The lower authorities denied the benefit to the appellant on the grounds that the goods were affixed with MRP/RSP at the supplier's end before importation, and thus, the provisions of a specific clause were deemed applicable.

3. The appellate tribunal, after thorough examination, found no merit in the arguments presented by the departmental representative and the findings of the lower authorities. Reference was made to Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which mandates countervailing duty to balance the impact on Indian manufacturers in the case of imported goods. The tribunal highlighted the circular that was relied upon by the lower authorities, emphasizing the specific clause that determines the duty based on the presence or absence of MRP/RSP at the time of clearance.

4. By delving into the provisions of the relevant notification, the tribunal elucidated that countervailing duty is imposed if the retail sale price is declared on the package. The tribunal's interpretation emphasized that even if the MRP/RSP is affixed by the overseas supplier or upon landing in India, the duty must be discharged based on the declared MRP/RSP. Additionally, a scenario was envisaged where the goods would not have been cleared by customs if the MRP/RSP was not affixed, as per the Standards of Weights and Measures rules.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the meticulous examination of the legal provisions and factual circumstances surrounding the issue of additional customs duty on imported colour television sets.