Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be...

Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be recovered on the basis of alleged post-import alteration of retail sale price. The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the importer itself misdeclared or later manipulated the RSP, and rejected the attempt to treat the importer and distributor as one entity because the distributor was a separate legal person and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. It also held that customs law contained no machinery to redetermine RSP for reassessment of additional duty, and that any post-import relabelling would, at most, raise deemed manufacture consequences under central excise law. The demand, confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.