2013 (4) TMI 624 - AT - Customs

Undervaluation - MRP based valuation on imports of goods - repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to other entity Held that - the declaration of MRP for the purpose of levy of CVD is required only when there is a statutory requirement under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article. Only when the goods are intended for retail sale and are packed in retail packages, the provisions of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 would apply. In the case under consideration, from the records of the case, it is absolutely clear that the appellants are importing the impugned goods not for retail sale but for repacking, labelling and branding and selling the same in bulk to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Therefore, they are not required to declare MRP in terms of Rule 3 of the said Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as they are industrial consumers. - Demand of differential duty is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction in imposition of penalty by the lower appellate authority.
2. Whether the importer is liable to pay additional Customs duty based on MRP.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reduction in imposition of penalty by the lower appellate authority
The case involved two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other by the appellant, M/s. Starlite Components Ltd. The dispute arose from the importation of Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures where the Customs Officers found under-valuation by the importer. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner revised the retail sale price and imposed penalties and confiscation of goods. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The Revenue challenged this reduction, arguing that the penalty imposed was not harsh. However, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was contrary to the law as it exceeded the duty sought to be evaded. Therefore, the reduction in penalty ordered by the lower appellate authority was deemed appropriate, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2: Liability to pay additional Customs duty based on MRP
The appellant importer argued that their activities of labeling, branding, and re-packing amounted to manufacturing under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. They contended that since the goods were not intended for retail sale but for further manufacture, they were not required to pay additional Customs duty based on MRP. The appellant cited Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and a clarification by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to support their position. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the goods were imported for repacking, labeling, and branding, not for retail sale. As such, the appellant was not obligated to declare MRP under the Legal Metrology Rules. The Tribunal further noted that the goods were specified in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, and the activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to "manufacture" under the Act. Consequently, the demand for differential duty was set aside, along with the confiscation of goods and any penal consequences. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant importer and provided consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the penalty reduction and allowed the appellant importer's appeal, setting aside the demand for differential duty and providing relief based on the importer's activities not requiring the declaration of MRP.