9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of entry No. 686223 dated 19-9-2009 and they classified the printers under Heading No. 8471.60 of the Customs Tariff. The importer sought exemption from MRP (Maximum Retail Price) based CVD on the ground that they are the actual users of the goods. However, on examination of the goods, it was noticed that they were in pre-packed condition having declared MRP on them and therefore, were covered under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and accordingly, the goods were leviable to Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) on the basis of retail sale price. The goods were assessed to duty accordingly and differential duty on account of CVD on MRP basis amounting to Rs. 5,86,007/- was confirmed. 2.2 The ld. Commissioner also confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 8471.60 of the Customs Tariff or 8473.30 as the case may be. Neither the description nor the classification has been challenged or modified by the Customs authorities in the assessment proceedings. Further, they had declared the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act in the bill of entry as per the invoice given from the foreign supplier and this value has also been accepted by the Customs for the purposes of assessment. Therefore, they have not mis-declared the value or any other material particulars in respect of the goods so as to attract the provisions of 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is true that they have sought to assess the CVD not on the MRP basis and this is only an inadvertent error. Therefore, confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly. Merely because the appellant had sought an exemption from RSP based assessment in respect of CVD, it does not amount to any misdeclaration on the part of the importer. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of Section 111(m) are not attracted at all. 7. In view of the above legal and factual position, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not justified and consequential imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the said Customs Act, is also not correct. Accordingly, I set aside the confiscation and consequent imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) is attracted only when the goods are liable to confiscation. As discussed above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
