2016 (11) TMI 1324 - AT - Customs

Valuation - incorrect MRP value affixed on the packages - the appellant is a habitual offender and this is the second time he is coming before this Tribunal on identical issue. There is no excuse for not declaring the correct value in the Bills of Entry. He therefore submits that in this case, there is no justification for reduction of redemption fine as was done in the previous case - the mistake happened because of the mistakes in invoices issued by the suppliers on the basis of which they filed bills of entry. He also submitted that the goods are subjected to examination before clearance. He therefore submits that leniency in this case may be shown and the exorbitant redemption fine imposed by the original adjudicating authority may be reduced. Held that - we find that there is a case for reduction of redemption fine of ₹ 8 lakh imposed by the original adjudicating authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only). Impugned Order-in-Appeal is upheld with the said modification - appeal disposed off with some modifications.

Summary

Issues: Import of LED TVs, Incorrect declaration of MRP, Differential duty, Redemption fine, Penalty imposition, Appeal against Order-in-Original, Reduction of redemption fine.

Import of LED TVs:
The appellant, engaged in trading of LED TVs, imported a consignment of LED TVs and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance. The goods were assessed based on the MRP value declared by the importer in the Bills of Entry.

Incorrect declaration of MRP:
The appellant declared MRP values of &8377; 3,990/- for 17 TVs and &8377; 4,990/- for 19 TVs in the Bills of Entry. However, upon examination, it was found that the actual MRP values affixed on the packages were higher, at &8377; 4,500/- and &8377; 5,500/- for 17 TVs and 19 TVs respectively.

Differential duty, Redemption fine, and Penalty imposition:
Due to the discrepancy in the declared and actual MRP values, a differential duty of &8377; 1,06,702/- was demanded. Additionally, a Redemption Fine of &8377; 8 Lakh and a penalty of &8377; 1,06,702/- were imposed on the appellants.

Appeal against Order-in-Original:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, leading the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Reduction of redemption fine:
The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued for a reduction in the redemption fine based on a previous case where a similar issue was resolved with a reduction in the fine. The Authorised Representative for Revenue opposed the reduction, citing the appellant's repeated offenses and lack of justification for leniency.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found merit in reducing the redemption fine imposed by the original adjudicating authority. The redemption fine was reduced from &8377; 8 Lakh to &8377; 2,00,000/-. The Order-in-Appeal was upheld with this modification, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.