Retail sale price declaration for tariff valuation upheld without requiring price marking on exempt cosmetic packages.

Notification No. 16/2013-Central Excise (N.T.) was construed as requiring importers of retail packages of cosmetics of 10 gm or 10 ml or less to declare the retail sale price to the assessing authorities for tariff valuation, without compelling affixation of that price on the package. On that reading, the notification did not conflict with the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 exemption from printing retail sale price on such packages. The challenge to the notification therefore failed, and the exemption from printed price marking remained intact while declaration for assessment purposes could still be required.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 16/2013-Central Excise (N.T.) applies to imported retail packages of cosmetics of 10 gm or 10 ml or less that are exempt under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 from printing the retail sale price, and whether the notification is illegal or ultra vires for requiring declaration of retail sale price for tariff valuation.

Analysis: The tariff value under Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was fixed for goods falling under heading 3304 in retail packages where Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The expression "retail sale price declared on such goods" in the notification was construed to mean the retail sale price declared to the assessing authorities by the importer, not a price compulsorily printed on the package. The respondents clarified that they would not insist on affixation of the retail sale price on the package, and that only a declaration to the authorities was required for assessment. On that construction, the petitioners' apprehension of compulsion to print the retail sale price on exempt packages did not survive, and the notification was held not to contravene the legal metrology exemption. The reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Jayanti Food Processing was distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The notification was upheld and the challenge to it failed; the petitioners were not entitled to the declaration or restraint sought.

Final Conclusion: The exemption from printing retail sale price on the package remained intact, but the importer could still be required to declare the retail sale price to the authorities for fixing tariff value and computing customs duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal notification fixing tariff value by reference to retail sale price may require declaration of that price to the assessing authority without mandating its affixation on the package, so long as the package remains within the statutory exemption from printed retail sale price.

---