TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....053219 and 20079990. Since on import of these items in addition to basic customs duty, additional customs duty leviable under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which is equal to the central excise duty leviable on the like goods produced or manufactured in India, is also attracted and since these items for the purpose of determining assessable value for levy of excise duty are notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the importer of such items at the time of import is required to declare the MRP on which the same would be sold and declare the same on the goods. Affixing the MRP label prior to clearance of the goods is also the requirement of Exim Policy 2004-2009 (para 5 of the General Notice regarding Import P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... premises of Shri J.S. Kohli, Prop. of M/s. Super Pack (India). Wherever the stock of the goods imported by Shri R.K. Dugar, was found, the same was found to be without any MRP stickers and, therefore, on reasonable belief that the goods have been cleared /imported contrary to the prohibitions imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act and hence are liable for confiscation, the same were placed under seizure. Inquiry also revealed that at the time of sale of the goods imported by Shri R.K. Dugar to various dealers, there was no MRP affixed on the goods and that MRP stickers were being supplied to the dealers by the importers. It was also ascertained that the actual MRP being declared on the imported goods at the time of sale was much highe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Customs Act, 1962). 3. Against this order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed along with stay applications. 4. Heard both sides in respect of stay applications. 5. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, and Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate , ld. Counsels for the appellants pleaded that there is no evidence that the goods imported by M/s. Rushu Inter Trade/Shri R.K. Dugar had been cleared from the customs without affixing the MRP and, therefore, the confiscation of the goods is bad in law, that the goods imported by Shri R.K. Dugar had been sold to various parties including Shri Vishal Arora and if after sale, the customers sold the goods at the higher price, the appellant who are the importers, would be in no position to kno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f pre-deposit in this case. As regards Sh. Vishal Arora, it was pleaded that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the conditions for imposition of penalty on him under section 112(b) of Custom Act, 1962 are satisfied. It was, therefore, pleaded that the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty from Sh. R.K. Dugar and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty from Sh. Vishal Arora may be waived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeals. 6. Shri Nagesh Pathak, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay applications by reiterating the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order and pleaded that the evidence on record clearly indicates that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sold have admitted that the goods were being purchased from Shri R.K. Dugar without MRP and it is Shri Dugar who were supplying the MRP stickers. The evidence on record also indicates that the correct MRP was not declared to the customs and as such, the goods were sold at much higher MRP. Though the appellant's plea is that substantial quantity of chocolates, toffees, fruit flavoured candies, etc. in form of packages of less than 10 gm. to which the Standards of Weights and Measures (Package commodity) Rules 1977 do not apply, Shri Santhanam at the time of hearing stated that after taking into account the quantity to which the SWM Rules do not apply, the net duty liability of the appellant would be around Rs.1.5 Crores. In view of this, w....