Mis-declaration of value, rejection of assessable value of seized goods, and liability for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The differential customs duty on seized goods with altered MRP stickers was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, along with proportionate interest and appropriate penalty. The department wrongly invoked Rule 5 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2008, which applies to manufacturers altering retail sale price after removal from the place of manufacture. However, the appellant is an importer, and the rule is inapplicable. The MRP sticker on imported goods matched the import declaration, and alteration occurred later in the domestic market. No evidence suggests the appellant altered the MRP or had knowledge of it. The department failed to prove any money flowed back to the appellant. The demand was confirmed based on presumptions and surmises. The evidence provided by the department, including invoices and font size similarities, was inadequate. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are not liable for confiscation u/s 111(m), and no circumstances warrant penalty imposition. The order under challenge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Mis-declaration of value, rejection of assessable value of seized goods, and liability for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The differential customs duty on seized goods with altered MRP stickers was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, along with proportionate interest and appropriate penalty. The department wrongly invoked Rule 5 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2008, which applies to manufacturers altering retail sale price after removal from the place of manufacture. However, the appellant is an importer, and the rule is inapplicable. The MRP sticker on imported goods matched the import declaration, and alteration occurred later in the domestic market. No evidence suggests the appellant altered the MRP or had knowledge of it. The department failed to prove any money flowed back to the appellant. The demand was confirmed based on presumptions and surmises. The evidence provided by the department, including invoices and font size similarities, was inadequate. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are not liable for confiscation u/s 111(m), and no circumstances warrant penalty imposition. The order under challenge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
