9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the retail sale price has to be declared on the package as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (SWM). The retail sale price is required to be declared in the case of imported goods which are specified under Section 4(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act. And the retail price which the respondent was required to declare on the goods packages is the maximum price at which they may be sold to the ultimate consumer and which is termed as maximum retail price (MRP). The goods also being notified under Notification No. 49/08-CE; therefore both the conditions specified in proviso to Section 3(2) of the CTA are met and goods will be leviable to RSP based assessment. Rule 6(1) of the SWM(PC) Rules, states that (i) Every package shall bear their own owned label securely affixed thereto defined plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter as to (a) name and address of the manufacturer (f) the retail sale price of the package. In the case of goods seized from the container as well as goods found in the godown, "the respondent have violated the provisions of the SWM(PC) Rules read with Section 3(2) of the CTA requiring importer to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were sent by supplier through courier and they undertake to affix the MRP on the goods at their godown before clearing/selling the same to the dealers. He also admitted that they are selling goods to dealers at the net dealer price declared in the list obtained from their store. He agreed that the price of Vashi store can be considered as MRP. Accordingly he paid differential duty of ₹ 1,49,754/- and ₹ 1,53,148/- on the goods which were cleared under the Bills of entry dated 28/5/2010 and B/E 813289 dt 18/12/2009. The goods in the container were seized. Equal quantity of packaging cartons provided with product code found in the containers were also seized. In further action the goods valued at ₹ 10310919/- lying in their godown at Vasai were seized for non declaration of MRP. The goods consisted of Hobbes, Ovens and Sinks. In the godown, printer machines used to affix MRP stickers was also seized. The labels which were affixed on the seized goods in the godown give details such as product name, size, quantity, MRP, Email Address of the Respondent. Investigation also showed that the price list, MRP stickers, sale invoices showed higher price than the MRP declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er did not put RSP labels on the pre-packed commodities in terms of Notification No. 44/RE-2000/1997-2002 dated 24/11/2000 issued by DGFT read with Section 46 of the Customs Act making the goods seized in the godown liable to confiscation. 5. The respondent filed cross objection under Section 129A(4) as under: (a) The Adjudicating Authority held that there is no concrete proof as to whether MRP labels were pasted on the packages at the time of actual imports, this was not challenged and has assume finality. (b) The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no evidence to show that the goods seized from the godown were the same as covered by the remaining Bills of Entry and therefore the goods except those mentioned in Bills of Entry dated 28/5/2010 and 18/12/2009 are not liable for confiscation. (c) Only those goods were seized which did not bear MRP labels at the time of import but no investigation was done to establish that these goods were imported under the 21 Bills of Entry, therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) held that these are not liable for confiscation. (d) The goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) having already been cleared for home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry and the partner admitted that the labels were received by courier. The labels which were affixed on the seized goods in the godown give details such as product name, size, quantity, MRP, Email Address of the Respondent. Investigation also showed that the price list, MRP stickers, sale invoices showed higher price than the MRP declared to customs at the time of import. IT was also revealed by Shri. D. Mohan Reddy, Godown Incharge that the MRP is provided on the cartons with rubber stamp at the time of dispatch as per the price list received from their head office. This fact also comes down in the panchanama when samples of cartons were drawn. These facts are clearly reflected on the samples of goods drawn which had labels on them. Therefore it is clear that goods are imported in package form and leviable to duty on RSP based assessment as stickers of higher MRP were found affixed on seized goods in the godowns. For not declaring the MRP correctly, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and duty is required to be paid on the basis of MRP declared in the price list. The fact that a certificate is produced from the CA much later to the effect that goods were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress of the manufacturer (f) the retail sale price of the package. In the case of goods seized from the container as well as goods found in the godown, the respondent have violated the provisions of the SWM(PC) Rules read with Section 3(2) of the CTA requiring importer to affix the label at the time of import. As those labels were not affixed as well as fact that RSP was not declared on the goods makes the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and leviable to duty on MRP basis. 7.4 The plea of the respondent that the Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to prove that goods seized from the godown were the same as those covered by the remaining bills of Entry mentioned in Annexure (1) to the show cause notice is not acceptable because modus operandi followed is confirmed by the statements of various people as mentioned above. It has been confessed by the partner that they bring all the goods to their godown at Vashi. No evidence has been provided to show that the goods lying in the godown are not imported goods or did not relate to the goods imported under Bills of Entry. Department made the charge based on the seizure as well as confessional st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged on MRP basis. The proviso to Section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act unambiguously states that in the case of such goods, the retail sale price has to be declared on the package as required under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, (SWM) The critical words are required and declared . There is not an iota of doubt that the retail sale price is required to be declared in the case of imported goods which are specified under Section 4(A) (1) of the Central Excise Act. The question which arises is - what is the retail sale price that is required to be declared. It may be safely concluded that the retail price which the appellant was required to declare on the goods packages is the maximum price at which they may be sold to the ultimate consumer and which is termed as maximum retail price (MRP). The facts in the case of ABB (supra) are different. There the facts were that the goods, namely electrical items, were cleared without declaring the RSP, and actually the goods were cleared by paying CVD in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by misclassifying the goods. In the present case the facts are different. Here the MRP was wrongly declared in the Bill of Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
