2024 (8) TMI 999 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty - importer tried to evade the duty deliberately claiming lesser IGST - applicability of N/N. 1/2017, dated 28-6-2017 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant had imported footwear and as per the relevant N/N. 1/2017, it was mandatory to mention the sale price of the footwear on the footwear itself for claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty. The appellant also admits that they were aware of the fact that MRP had to be mentioned since in the past also they had imported and cleared the goods and it is also admitted that the imported goods MRP/RSP was not mentioned on any of these products. The Commissioner appeals in the impugned order has rightly observed that As per Sl. No. 225 of Schedule 1 of N/N. 1/2017 (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 this lower rate of 5% is applicable to footwear of Chapter 64 only if they have a retail sale price not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- per pair provided that such retail sale price is indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself and otherwise IGST 18% shall be applicable . Since admittedly the goods are being cleared without MRP/RSP goods are liable for confiscation as held by the Commissioner is valid - the differential duty amount approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-, the redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 49000/- appears to be nominal and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. The impugned order is upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Appellant imported goods without mentioning MRP, claimed lower IGST rate, goods confiscated, penalty imposed. Appellant's argument of venial violation rejected. Lower IGST rate applies only if MRP mentioned on goods. Confiscation upheld, appeal dismissed.