2016 (10) TMI 333 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of MRP at the time of import - demand of differential duty - import of toilet soaps - declared RSP per piece ₹ 5/- - replacement of the labels/stickers - Held that: - there has been a clear facilitation and association with the activities of post-import sale of the goods at higher prices by affixing higher price (MRP) labels on the goods on the part of the appellant-importer. The importer has been in active knowledge and they rather facilitated the sale of the goods to be made at the higher price (MRP) than the price (MRP/RSP) they had declared to the customs. The appellant cannot absolve themselves from the responsibility that the goods carried different MRP labels of the price then what they had declared to the customs.

The argument of the appellant that the wholesale distributor / dealer, who sold the goods at higher price causing short-payment of CVD is to be taken as deemed manufacture and differential duty should be charged from wholesaler/distributor, cannot cut much ice, when they themselves have through out been involved and in the full active knowledge of the fact that the goods were being sold at the higher price (MRP) than what they had declared to the customs.

The decision in the case of PLANET SPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2004 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] relied upon where it was held that it was incumbent upon the importer to declare the MRP at which the imported goods were to be sold and not any other price and demand of duty, confiscation and penalty were upheld.

The demand of differential duty upheld - penalty reduced to ₹ 6,97,212/- - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant, with modification in the amount of penalty.