LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-174

SUN EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI

Decided On December 15, 2016
Sun Exports Appellant
V/S
Commissioner Of Customs (Airport), Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Final Order No. 41360/2015, dated 30-9-2015, passed by the Tribunal, whereby the redemption fine and penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) were enhanced.

(2.) The case of the Revenue as is evident from the records is that for violation of the rules relating to the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, wherein, there was non-declaration of MRP on the packaged goods, which is mandatory and, therefore, after issue of show cause notice, the confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Against the said order, the appellant/importer filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who, vide order dated 21-9-2011, held that since there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant/importer to evade duty and since there is no revenue loss to the Government, relying upon the Board's Circular No. 19/2001, while the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, which increased the fine from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant/importer is before this Court by filing the present appeal.

(3.) As per the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, printing of MRP on the outside of the carton is a mandatory provision to be followed to avoid the possibility of misleading the public by charging exorbitant price than the one fixed for the particular commodity. In the case on hand, the MRP has not been printed on the outside of the packaged commodity, which fact is not in dispute. Therefore, for violation of the said provision, the appellant/importer was visited with penalty in addition to redemption fine.