9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 910 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - smuggling - import of mobile phone of China origin - confiscation on the ground that the goods do not have the MRP/RSP printed or labelled either on the carton or individual packets of mobile phones which are mandatory requirement u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944 readwith Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 - Held that - all the pre packaged commodities which includes mobile phones were required to confirm to the provisions of Packaged Commodities Rules readwith Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 readwith provisions for Additional Customs Duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on their import, readwith General Notes regarding import policy, were required to bear the declaration to the effect - no error of law and/or fact appears on the face of the record before us, except that in view of findings by this Tribunal, that the goods in question (mobile phones) were not found related to the bills of entry produced by importers namely M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd., we find that no penalty was imposable on these two applicants. In retaining the penalties on these two importers-applicants there have crept anomaly in order, as on the one hand their relation to the goods seized is not established and secondly penalty imposed on them has been reduced and retained under Section 112 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the penalty on the two importers namely M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. So far other appellants are concerned, no interference is required in the Final Order dated 29.07.2015 passed by this Tribunal - ROM application disposed off.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order, Confiscation of China origin mobile phones, Non-declaration of MRP, Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy, Imposition of penalties. Rectification of Mistake in Final Order: The applicants filed misc. applications for rectification of mistake against Final Order dated 29.07.2015. The Final Order was received on 28.12.2015, and the applications were filed within the limitation of six months. The Tribunal observed no error of law or fact on the record, except for the penalties imposed on two importers. The penalties on these importers were set aside as their relation to the seized goods was not established. Confiscation of China Origin Mobile Phones: The case involved the confiscation of 77 cartons of China origin mobile phones for not having the MRP/RSP printed as required by the Central Excise Act and Packaged Commodity Rules. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods valued at ?96,40,150 under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled, and the confiscation was primarily due to the absence of MRP. Non-declaration of MRP and Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy: The Tribunal noted that the mobile phones did not have the MRP printed, violating the provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy. The failure to declare MRP rendered the goods liable to confiscation, as per the ruling in a Delhi High Court case. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but modified the penalties imposed on various appellants, finding some penalties to be on the higher side. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on multiple individuals and entities involved in the case. The Tribunal modified the penalties, reducing or setting aside penalties for some appellants based on the circumstances of the case. Penalties were adjusted for factors such as the relationship of the appellants to the seized goods and the reasonableness of the fines imposed. The Tribunal found no need for interference in the Final Order except for the penalties on the two importers, which were set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the misc. applications, upholding the confiscation of the goods due to non-declaration of MRP, modifying penalties for various appellants, and setting aside penalties for importers with no established relation to the seized goods.
|
