2004 (10) TMI 209 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand, Confiscation for Misdeclaration; Imposes Reduced Penalty Based on Actual Selling Price.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and confiscation of goods, imposing a reduced penalty on the appellant for misdeclaring the MRP of imported goods. The ... Valuation (Customs) - Misdeclaration - Whether the appellant misdeclared the maximum retail price (M.R.P.) of the goods imported at the time of import - HELD THAT:- The facts which are not in dispute are that the impugned goods are the goods in relation to which the retail sale price is to be declared on the packages under the law for the time being in force and these goods have been specified by the Central Government under Section 4A(1) of the Central Excise Act. It is also not disputed by the Appellants that the MRP declared by them at the time of importation was not the same at which the goods were sold by them subsequently. This fact has been admitted by Shri Dipak Agarwal, Financial Controller of the Appellants, in his statements. Accordingly, the appellants are liable to discharge their duty liability on the basis of actual MRP at which the impugned goods are sold and not on the basis of MRP declared by them in haste without actually determining the same after taking into consideration the various factors such as landed cost and profit, etc. In the present matter before us, it was incumbent upon the importer to declare the MRP at which the imported goods were to be sold and not any other price. The judgment in the case of ITC Ltd.[2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT] is also not applicable as the facts are different. In ITC case the Appellants had cleared cigarettes manufactured by them after paying excise duty on the basis of the Maximum Retail Price printed by them on each cigarette packet. In the present matter the Appellants have changed the MRP. We, therefore, hold that there was a misdeclaration of MRP at the time of import and as such we uphold the demand of duty, liability of the impugned goods for confiscation and liability of the Appellants for penal action. We uphold the demand of differential duty. Thus, we reduce the penalty imposed on the Appellants to Rs. 10,000/- and amount of redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 60,000/-. The Appeal is thus partly allowed. Issues involved: Whether the appellant misdeclared the maximum retail price (M.R.P.) of the goods imported at the time of import.Summary:The appeal was filed by M/s. Planet Sports Pvt. Ltd. regarding the misdeclaration of M.R.P. of goods imported by them. The appellant argued that the MRP declared at the time of import cannot be accurate due to market conditions affecting pricing. They cited legal precedents to support their case and emphasized their cooperation during the investigation. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the goods were sold at a price higher than the declared MRP, leading to misdeclaration of value. The Financial Controller of the appellant admitted discrepancies in MRP declarations. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Tariff Act and determined that the duty liability should be based on the actual MRP at which the goods were sold, not the declared MRP. They distinguished previous judgments where goods were sold at different prices post-import. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposed a reduced penalty on the appellants. The appeal was partly allowed, with penalties reduced.This judgment clarifies the importance of accurate MRP declarations at the time of importation, emphasizing that duty liability is based on the actual selling price of goods. The Tribunal's decision highlights the consequences of misdeclaration and the need for compliance with pricing regulations to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods.