TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (2) thereof states that such declared value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price (RSP) declared on such goods less such amount of abatement, if any. The price tag admittedly on the package was the maximum retail price (MRP) displayed, which cannot be the RSP, since RSP may not always be the MRP and MRP also may not always be the RSP. The case of the appellant comes out of the mischief of Section 112(a) since the alleged mis-declaration would not per se justify confiscation of the goods in question under Section 111. This is because the appellant perhaps chose to go by the new MRP list (placed at page 57 of the appeal memorandum) whereas the vendor, for the best reasons known, affixed MRP of INR 2100/- and hence, no mala fides could be attached on the part of the appellant. Facts of the case on hand are very peculiar inasmuch as, clearly there was an understanding as regards the value is concerned, in support of which documents in the form of e-mails have been placed on record, which are not disputed by the Revenue. The value affixed on the label did not clearly show the price agreed upon in the purchase order dated 27.05.2013. Further, the said price tag was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods was assumed to be mis-declared by the importer to evade payment of duty. 4. It appears that the appellant vide its letter dated 28.09.2013 explained that the declared MRP in the Bill-of-Entry was on the basis of understanding between the appellant and their supplier, in support of which they appear to have furnished printouts of e-mails exchanged between the appellant and their supplier starting from 11.07.2013 up to 14.09.2013. They had also filed the purchase order dated 27.05.2013 wherein the agreed MRP to be printed in INR was INR 2400/- per piece and due to time-lag and on account of the Indian Rupee having depreciated against the U.S. Dollar substantially, in order to cover the cost of foreign exchange, an e-mail was sent to the supplier to revise the MRP to be printed at INR 2650/-. 5. It appears that not satisfied with the explanation, a Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2013 was issued inter alia proposing to confiscate the goods in question under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaring the RSP, apart from penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA ibid. 6. It appears that the appellant filed a suitable reply to the above Show Cause Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-importer. A perusal of the e-mail exchanged between the appellant and their vendor clearly indicates the request insofar as the MRP is concerned, but however, it was perhaps the mistake of the vendor/supplier in not effecting the required RSP tag. No doubt, the original price as per the purchase order, which is placed at page number 53 of the appeal memorandum (dated 27.05.2013) was INR 2400 per piece. There was a request e-mail from the appellant to incorporate the new MRP on account of sharp change in INR versus USD and in reply vide reply mail dated 12.07.2013, the seller / vendor appears to have enclosed the new MRP list, which is placed at page number 57 of the appeal memorandum, wherein the new MRP of 400 mm Maxx air pf is shown as INR 2650/-. However, in one of the e-mail correspondences which is dated 14.09.2013, the vendor has indicated the MRP as INR 2100/- only. 11. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read as under: - SECTION 4A. Valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify any goods, in relation to which it is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchase order was clear: the MRP to be affixed was INR 2400/- per piece; the revised MRP, as understood between the parties, was INR 2650/-, against which the vendor affixed INR 2100/- as MRP, which is not as per either the purchase order or even the revised MRP list and for this, the appellant-importer cannot be held to be responsible in any way. Hence, even the penalty under Section 114AA is not warranted. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act are ordered to be deleted. 15.1 Admittedly, the importer claimed exemption from 4% SAD which was ultimately denied as there was alleged mis-declaration of MRP. In any case, the differential duty was duly remitted by the appellant and moreover, we find that the MRP affixed on the goods imported (of INR 2100) was never the agreed amount; the purchase order gives a different amount, which was sought to be revised as per the new MRP list at INR 2650/-. Hence, how the MRP of INR 2100/- was affixed lacks any support since the same was never agreed upon nor is there any discussion, other than the e-mail dated 14.09.2013. The logic at paragraph 11 above of this or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
