TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with specific import consignment of the appellant and also their claim regarding local purchase has not been verified - Held that: - the duty demand is made based on the inference of higher MRP evidenced in certain sales in Kerala. Admittedly, the good which were found in the godown were without MRP and possibility of that goods likely to have been sold higher MRP cannot be the reasons for sustaining the demand for differential duty. In any case there is force in the claim of the appellant that even if the Revenue contends that these consignments were imported by the appellants apparently they will be part of the other total demand of ₹ 91,86,981/- which covers the period 2014-15 - demand withheld. Valuation - charge on appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement for these items for assessment and clearance in terms of Notification No.24/2000 dated 24.11.2000 of DGFT. The officers conducted further follow up investigation. On completion of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and others for violation of the provisions of Customs Act with reference to MRP label and also under - violation of past imported consignments. Proceedings concluded in the impugned order. The original authority confirmed customs duty of ₹ 6,23,664/- in respect of the goods covered by live Bill of Entry dated 27.1.2015; duty of ₹ 14,22,622/- on the goods found in the godown premises of the appellant and further duty of ₹ 91,86,981/- in respect of past imports of similar goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods. Even if it is considered that the MRP value adopted for such sale is higher than what is declared to the customs, the duty demand should the restricted to the cases where evidences to support such higher prices is available. The same cannot be extended to all the clearances and sales made for the whole year. The appellants have all supporting evidence of import and subsequent clearance of such import to various retailers, to establish the case in their support that almost all the items were sold on MRP declared to customs and in some cases either less or higher than such declared price. These documents were made available to the original authority but no examination and findings were recorded. (d) Regarding the admission stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. (d) The ld. AR also relied on the details provided by appellant recorded in para 42.4 of the impugned order to the effect regarding the method of preparation of document for sale of goods as admitted by Shri Duggal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the case records. 5. There are three aspects in the dispute. The first one is relating to consignment covered by live bill of entry dated 27.1.2015. Admittedly the consignment is yet to be examined and assessed and there is a request by the importer for a first check, before assessment. The fact that the goods which are subjected on MRP basis assessment can be affixed with the MRP labels in the custody of the customs is prevailing practice and the same ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential duty as well as penal action. However, the quantification of such differential duty has been made in a summary manner based on certain illustrative evidences. We note that the invoices submitted by the appellants required detailed verification so that the differential duty in respect of goods which were sold with much higher MRP can be arrived at on such verification. Penal consequence of such differential duty should be commensurate to violation as found on such verification. For this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty. The appellants shall be given adequate opportunity to submit the documents and defence before a decision taken. 8. In view of the above discussions and an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|