2013 (11) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Appellant liable for mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, ordered to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks.

The tribunal found the appellant liable for mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, directing a deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks to address ... Duty demand - Mis-declaration of MRP on bulbs imported - Held that:- Instead of explaining the position of the fraudulent stickers recovered during the course of investigation the appellant went on leading legal pleading. Had there been no utility of MRP stickers of higher value the appellant would not have possessed the same. Preponderance of probability suggests that the appellant was beneficiary of sticker of higher value. Prima facie, it cannot be ruled out that Revenue was prejudiced for the questionable modus operandi followed by the appellant. Therefore, we direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) within 6 weeks from today - stay granted partly. Issues: Mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs, duty demand, fraudulent stickers, compliance with the order, detention of goods, stay applicationMis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs:The appellant contested the duty demand of Rs. 86,34,821 based on mis-declaration of MRP on imported bulbs. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence to prove mis-declaration. However, the impugned order revealed that the MRP declared during import was replaced by stickers post-import, as highlighted in the adjudication order. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of fraudulent stickers found during the investigation. The tribunal inferred that the appellant likely benefited from the higher-value stickers, indicating a questionable modus operandi. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks to address the prejudicial impact on revenue.Compliance with the order and detention of goods:The appellant raised objections regarding goods worth Rs. 1 crore detained by the department, claiming that they were in the appellant's custody as a state custodian. The tribunal dismissed this plea, emphasizing that the appellant was litigating without resolving the issue of detained goods. The appellant's counsel requested an expedited appeal hearing, which the tribunal agreed to facilitate upon compliance with the deposit order. The tribunal made it clear that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of both appeals.Stay application:The tribunal disposed of the stay application subject to the condition of complying with the deposit order. Non-compliance would lead to the dismissal of both appeals. The tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to the conditions set forth in the order to maintain the stay and pursue the appeals effectively.