2012 (4) TMI 437 - AT - Customs

No MRP declared on Import of Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures - differential duty as per MRP declared by main customer of applicant on the final product which is sold in the open market - goods confiscated Held that - On the condition that the applicant shall execute a bond of full value of the goods and a bank guarantee of 25% of the differential duty release the goods on compliance of the above conditions within 7 days.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Provisional release of imported goods without MRP declaration
2. Liability to pay differential duty based on MRP
3. Execution of bond and bank guarantee for release of goods
4. Stay of redemption fine and penalty during appeal

Analysis:
1. The applicant imported Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures without declaring the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). Upon examination, it was found that the goods were ready for retail sale without an MRP. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for demanding the differential duty based on the MRP declared by another company on a similar product. The demands were confirmed, and fines and penalties were imposed. The applicant sought the release of the goods by executing a bond and bank guarantee. The Tribunal considered the applicant's argument that they undertake labeling and fixing of MRP as instructed by their main customer, amounting to manufacturing under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the provisional release of the goods on the condition that a bond of the full value of the goods and a bank guarantee of 25% of the differential duty be executed.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's submission that they should not be liable to pay Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on MRP, as they undertake manufacturing activities post-importation. The Tribunal found the applicant's offer to execute the required bond and bank guarantee sufficient to safeguard revenue, hence permitting the provisional release of the goods. The Tribunal directed the revenue to release the goods upon compliance with the specified conditions within seven days. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered a stay on the redemption fine and penalty during the appeal process.

3. Recognizing the recurring nature of the issue, the Tribunal instructed the registry to list the appeal for final disposal on a specific date. The Tribunal's decision to allow the provisional release of the goods, subject to the execution of a bond and bank guarantee, aimed to balance the interests of the applicant and revenue authorities. The Tribunal's direction for final disposal of the appeal indicated a proactive approach to resolving the matter efficiently and conclusively.

4. The Tribunal's decision to grant provisional release of the goods while ensuring the execution of necessary financial instruments demonstrated a pragmatic approach to addressing the applicant's request. By staying the redemption fine and penalty during the appeal period, the Tribunal maintained a fair and equitable stance pending the final resolution of the case. The Tribunal's emphasis on the recurring nature of the issue underscored the importance of timely and definitive adjudication to prevent prolonged disputes and uncertainties in similar cases.