2017 (12) TMI 35 - AT - Customs

Non-fixation of MRP - goods covered by live bill of entry - Held that - Admittedly the consignment is yet to be examined and assessed and there is a request by the importer for a first check before assessment. The fact that the goods which are subjected on MRP basis assessment can be affixed with the MRP labels in the custody of the customs is prevailing practice and the same are done at the request of the importers in many cases. As such the duty demands and finding of violation on such consignment is premature and cannot be sustained. Goods found and seized in the godown premises - claim of the appellant is that no correlation has been made with specific import consignment of the appellant and also their claim regarding local purchase has not been verified - Held that - the duty demand is made based on the inference of higher MRP evidenced in certain sales in Kerala. Admittedly the good which were found in the godown were without MRP and possibility of that goods likely to have been sold higher MRP cannot be the reasons for sustaining the demand for differential duty. In any case there is force in the claim of the appellant that even if the Revenue contends that these consignments were imported by the appellants apparently they will be part of the other total demand of Rs. 91, 86, 981/- which covers the period 2014-15 - demand withheld. Valuation - charge on appellant is that appellant having sold the goods on much higher MRP after changing the MRP label - Held that - Admittedly for the goods sold through retailers in Kerala the MRP was more than double in certain cases. This apparently is clear violation calling for demand of differential duty as well as penal action. However the quantification of such differential duty has been made in a summary manner based on certain illustrative evidences - the invoices submitted by the appellants required detailed verification so that the differential duty in respect of goods which were sold with much higher MRP can be arrived at on such verification - For this limited purpose we remand the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty. Appeal partly allowed - part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability for goods without MRP labels in a live bill of entry.
2. Duty liability for goods found in the appellant's godown.
3. Allegations of selling goods with higher MRP labels.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant imported deodorants and perfumes without MRP labels, leading to a duty demand. The appellant argued that MRP labels could be affixed post-import, and the duty demand was premature. The Tribunal agreed, stating that affixing MRP labels post-import was a common practice, and duty demands were premature.

Issue 2:
Regarding goods found in the appellant's godown, the appellant claimed no correlation with specific import consignments and questioned the duty demand based on higher MRP in sales in Kerala. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the goods to specific imports and noted the duty demand covered a broader period, thus rejecting the demand for differential duty on these goods.

Issue 3:
The appellant was accused of selling goods with higher MRP labels. The Tribunal acknowledged the violation but found the quantification of differential duty based on illustrative evidence summary. They remanded the matter for re-quantification, emphasizing the need for detailed verification and allowing the appellant to present documents and defense before a decision is made.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for re-quantification of duty related to the sale of goods with higher MRP labels, ensuring a fair assessment based on detailed verification and allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case.