2013 (12) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Import of Meril Beauty Soap - Classification under 3401.19 or 3401.11 - Held that - CVD is leviable on goods falling under sub-heading 3401.19 - Heading 3401.11 covers soaps other than toilets - lower authority has clearly distinguished the fact that the item is properly classifiable under heading 3401.19 and for the purpose of calculating additional duty of customs on the imported goods, the assessment is required to be done on the basis of maximum retail price after granting abatement of 35% on the MRP. Section 3(1) of the CTA 75 is very clear and support obtained from this section in the said assessment is correct - appellant could not produce anything contrary - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under specific headings for duty calculation; Applicability of additional duty based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP); Challenge against penalty imposition.

Classification Issue:
The appellant imported Meril Beauty Soap and claimed it should be classified under 3401.11 for toilet soap, while the department argued for classification under 3401.19 for additional duty calculation based on MRP. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision and contended that once a product is covered under a specific heading, it should be classified accordingly. The judges noted that CVD is leviable on goods under 3401.19, but the dispute was between 3401.11 and 3401.19. The judges referenced the relevant CETA, 1985 provisions and upheld the lower authority's decision that the goods fall under 3401.19, necessitating duty calculation based on MRP after granting abatement. The judges dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to provide evidence contrary to the lower authority's classification.

Additional Duty Calculation Issue:
The department initiated proceedings against the appellant for differential duty payment based on the classification of goods under 3401.19 and the applicability of CVD on MRP. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand but set aside the penalty. The appellant challenged the duty demand, arguing for classification under 3401.11 and not under MRP-based duty calculation. The judges upheld the duty demand under 3401.19 and supported the assessment based on MRP after granting abatement, citing Section 3(1) of the CTA' 75. As the appellant failed to present contrary evidence, the judges upheld the lower authority's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Penalty Imposition Issue:
The lower authority imposed a penalty on the appellant, which was set aside by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant did not contest the penalty imposition in the appeal. The judges focused on the duty classification and calculation issues, ultimately upholding the duty demand and dismissing the appeal without interfering with the lower authority's decision on the penalty imposition.