2017 (12) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers and found to be not affixed with MRP labels which are the requirement for these items for assessment and clearance in terms of Notification No.24/2000 dated 24.11.2000 of DGFT. The officers conducted further follow up investigation. On completion of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and others for violation of the provisions of Customs Act with reference to MRP label and also under - violation of past imported consignments. Proceedings concluded in the impugned order. The original authority confirmed customs duty of Rs. 6,23,664/- in respect of the goods covered by live Bill of Entry dated 27.1.2015; duty of Rs. 14,22,622/- on the goods found in the godown premises of the appellant and further duty of Rs. 9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....constitute very small percentage of imported goods. Even if it is considered that the MRP value adopted for such sale is higher than what is declared to the customs, the duty demand should the restricted to the cases where evidences to support such higher prices is available. The same cannot be extended to all the clearances and sales made for the whole year. The appellants have all supporting evidence of import and subsequent clearance of such import to various retailers, to establish the case in their support that almost all the items were sold on MRP declared to customs and in some cases either less or higher than such declared price. These documents were made available to the original authority but no examination and findings were recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounds were made by the appellant. (d) The ld. AR also relied on the details provided by appellant recorded in para 42.4 of the impugned order to the effect regarding the method of preparation of document for sale of goods as admitted by Shri Duggal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the case records. 5. There are three aspects in the dispute. The first one is relating to consignment covered by live bill of entry dated 27.1.2015. Admittedly the consignment is yet to be examined and assessed and there is a request by the importer for a first check, before assessment. The fact that the goods which are subjected on MRP basis assessment can be affixed with the MRP labels in the custody of the customs is prevailing practice and the ....