2020 (5) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported goods - allegation that goods at the time of import were not bearing MRP/RSP - HELD THAT - There is no violation by the appellant as the goods have been imported through Nava Sheva which is the notified sea port and further ICD, Garhi Harsaru falls under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj. The provision of Legal Metrology Act read with the rules thereunder do not prohibit stickering as regards MRP, prior to out of charge given to the customs - Admittedly, such stickering has been done in the facts of the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules
Confiscation of goods for not bearing MRP/RSP
Importing goods at a non-notified sea port

Violation of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules:
The appellant, an importer of Deodorant/perfumes, faced confiscation of goods and penalties for not bearing MRP/RSP at the time of import. The Commissioner upheld the confiscation, citing violations of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. However, the appellant argued that stickering for MRP/RSP was done before the out of charge was given, thus complying with the legal requirements. The Tribunal found no violation as the stickering was done in the customs area before the goods were released, thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of confiscation and penalties.

Confiscation of goods for not bearing MRP/RSP:
The Commissioner upheld the confiscation of goods, stating that the appellant violated the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 by importing goods without MRP/RSP markings. The appellant contended that stickering for MRP/RSP was done before the out of charge was given, complying with legal requirements. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that stickering before customs release did not violate any provisions. As a result, the order of confiscation was set aside, and penalties were also revoked.

Importing goods at a non-notified sea port:
The Commissioner held that the goods were rightly confiscated as they were imported at ICD, Garhi Harsaru, which was not a notified sea port for importing drugs and cosmetics. However, the appellant argued that ICD, Garhi Harsaru fell under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj, which was a notified port for such imports. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding that the goods were imported through Nava Sheva, a notified sea port, and ICD, Garhi Harsaru was under the jurisdiction of a notified port. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation order was set aside, granting the appellant consequential benefits.