TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds fines for MRP non-disclosure on packaged goods, emphasizing consumer protection.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sun Exports Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Air Port), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal</h3> M/s. Sun Exports Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Air Port), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal - 2017 (349) E.L.T. 258 ... Issues:Violation of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Non-declaration of MRP on packaged goods - Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty by Tribunal.Analysis:Issue 1: Violation of Standards of Weights and Measures RulesThe case revolved around the violation of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, specifically the non-declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the packaged goods, which is a mandatory requirement to prevent misleading the public by charging excessive prices. The appellant/importer faced penalties and redemption fines due to this violation.Issue 2: Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) DecisionThe Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) initially reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant/importer, citing no mala fide intention to evade duty and no revenue loss to the government. The Commissioner considered a Board circular and reduced the fines significantly.Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision and AppealThe Revenue appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Tribunal, which increased the redemption fine and penalty substantially due to the violation of rules regarding MRP declaration on imported goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant/importer had imported mobile phones without affixing MRP on the cartons, justifying the increased fines based on the gravity of the offense.Issue 4: Appellant's ArgumentsThe appellant/importer contended that there was no mis-declaration, as the declared Retail Selling Price (RSP) formed the basis for duty calculation. They argued that the Tribunal wrongly assumed all profits would accrue to the importer without considering retailer profits. The appellant also highlighted the Legal Metrology Rules provision for prosecution deferment, which they claimed the Tribunal overlooked.Issue 5: Revenue's JustificationThe Revenue argued that MRP disclosure is crucial to prevent cheating and misleading the public regarding prices. They asserted that failure to display MRP, though not a prohibited import, still warranted action under Section 125 of the Act, justifying the fines and penalties imposed.Final DecisionThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of MRP disclosure for consumer protection, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding profit distribution and prosecution deferment. The Court found the Tribunal's fines reasonable and necessary to deter exploitation and uphold public interest.In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the significance of MRP disclosure to protect consumers and deter exploitation, thereby upholding the fines imposed on the appellant/importer for violating the Standards of Weights and Measures Rules.
TaxTMI 