PLANET SPORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Planet Sports Pvt. Ltd., is whether they have misdeclared the maximum retail price (M.R.P.) of the goods imported by them at the time of import.

(2.) Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants, engaged in retailing and distribution of various branded goods in different categories, launched 'Marks and Spencer' brand in India in December, 2001; that they imported two containers of goods of Marks and Spencer in November 2001; that the working of MRP based duty was done by the person handling clearance in a great haste, as there was a lot of pressure to quickly clear the goods in order to open the retail outlets as per schedule; that thus no actual costing of the items could be done in proper and rationale manner to arrive at MRPs; that their showrooms, corporate office and the warehouse were searched by the Officers on 15 -1 -2002 and 16 -1 -2002 and the goods were seized; that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order, confirmed the demand for differential duty, confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty holding that the retail sale price had been misdeclared by the Appellants.

(3.) The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants had declared the MRP and any subsequent reduction/increase in price to boost the sale of goods cannot be a matter of concern to the Department; that MRP cannot be declared correctly at the time of importation of the consignment as MRP will be dependent on the market conditions prevailing at the time of sale of the goods; that many factors affect the marketability of a product which in turn affects its market price; that subsequent fluctuations in the prices of the commodity can have no relevance whatsoever so far as the liability to pay duty is concerned. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE, Madras,1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C) and ITC Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held that Excise Authorities are required to act on the basis of printed MRP and the Notification does not envisage an inquiry into the correction of printed MRP. Finally he submitted that the bonafide of the Appellants is obvious and apparent from the fact that they provided full cooperation and assistance in the entire investigation and deposited the entire differential duty even before the issuance of show cause notice; that in view of this, no penalty is imposable on them; that there was no attempt on their part to evade duty and the short payment of duty, if any, was result of inadvertence. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. CC, Jaipur [2003 (157) E.L.T. 193 (T)].