Premature customs demand and uncorrelated godown stock claims were set aside, while higher-MRP sales required fresh verification.

Duty demand on an unexamined live Bill of Entry was treated as premature because the consignment had not yet been assessed, and pre-clearance MRP labelling was described as a prevailing practice in customs custody. Differential duty on godown goods was not sustained where the stock was not correlated to specific imports, the claimed local procurement was unverified, and the demand risked duplication. Allegations of higher-MRP sales could justify further scrutiny, but the duty and penalty figures required detailed verification of invoices and fresh quantification. The matter was therefore remanded for reassessment on the higher-MRP issue, while the unsupported demands were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty demand and violation findings on the live Bill of Entry were sustainable before examination and assessment; (ii) whether differential duty on goods found in the godown could be sustained without correlation to specific imports and in the light of the claim of local procurement and duplication of demand; (iii) whether the demand and penalties based on alleged sale of goods at higher MRP required detailed verification and re-quantification.

Issue (i): whether duty demand and violation findings on the live Bill of Entry were sustainable before examination and assessment.

Analysis: The consignment had not yet been examined and assessed, and the importer had sought first check. In MRP-based assessment matters, affixation of MRP labels before clearance in customs custody was stated to be a prevailing practice. On those facts, fastening a duty demand or violation at that stage was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand and violation finding on the live Bill of Entry were set aside as premature.

Issue (ii): whether differential duty on goods found in the godown could be sustained without correlation to specific imports and in the light of the claim of local procurement and duplication of demand.

Analysis: The goods found in the godown were not linked to any specific import consignment, and the claimed local procurement was not verified. The demand was built on an inference drawn from some higher-MRP sales in Kerala, which by itself could not sustain differential duty on the godown stock. The contention of duplication with the broader demand for the same period also carried force.

Conclusion: The differential duty demand on the goods found in the godown was not sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the demand and penalties based on alleged sale of goods at higher MRP required detailed verification and re-quantification.

Analysis: There was material indicating that in some cases goods were sold through retailers in Kerala at an MRP higher than the customs declaration. That circumstance justified further examination and could support differential duty and penal action. However, the quantification had been made summarily on illustrative evidence, and the invoices needed detailed verification to determine the correct duty liability and corresponding penalty.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for re-quantification of duty and reconsideration of the consequential penalty after verification of the supporting documents.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with the premature and unsupported duty demands being set aside, while the portion concerning alleged higher-MRP sales was sent back for fresh quantification and consequential decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot be sustained on premises that are unexamined, uncorrelated, or merely inferential, and where liability depends on disputed transaction data, the quantification must rest on detailed verification of the underlying records.

---