Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 516 - AT - CustomsAnti Dumping duty - import of tiles - mis-declaration of goods to evade duty - classified under heading 6908.90.90 as glazed ceramic tiles? - Whether the appellant had misdeclared the goods so as to make them liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and consequent penalty thereof? - whether the appellant is required to declare the MRP of the goods when they are imported for personal use? - Held that: - the order of the adjudicating authority of assessment to bill of entry by charging anti-dumping duty is correct and does not require any interference. Since there was misdeclaration, we hold that the goods are liable for confiscation. However, the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 9,00,000/- as against CIF value of approximately ₹ 22 lakhs which, in our considered view, is disproportionate. Ends of justice will be met if redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/- from ₹ 9,00,000/-. The appellant is required to discharge this redemption fine. As regards penalty imposed on this issue, we find that the penalty is also excessive and disproportionate. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and order accordingly. As regards the CVD payable based upon MRP, we find that the adjudicating authority has totally erred in coming to such conclusion. First and foremost, we find that in the case of imported goods, the MRP has to be declared by the importer if there is going to be resale of the goods. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the tiles which were imported were to be used by the appellant for their personal use. On this factual matrix, we find that CVD discharged by the appellant based upon the declared value + customs duty is correct and does not require any interference. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has arrived at MRP in a very unorthodox manner of calculating the same as 2.5 times of the CIF value of the consignment. There is no rationale behind such arrival of the MRP. In view of this, the findings of the adjudicating authority that CVD has to be paid on MRP determined seems to be incorrect and is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal of the appellant as regards the discharge of CVD based upon MRP basis calculated is allowed while the appeal of the appellant on the setting aside of redemption fine and penalty and anti-dumping duty is rejected subject to modification - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant-assessee.
|