2025-VIL-1630-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Additional duty of customs, Jurisdiction to determine Retail sale price (RSP), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Import of "parts of forklift" – Revision in assessment and demand of differential duty by re-appraising the value for the purpose of Additional duties of Customs under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in accordance with Section 3(2) - Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Import) had the authority to re-determine the 'retail sale price (RSP)' for the purpose of levying additional duties of customs under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with section 3(2) thereof - HELD - The Commissioner of Customs (Import) did not have the authority to re-determine the 'retail sale price (RSP)' for the purpose of levying Additional duties of Customs. The proviso to Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 empowers the assessment of Additional duties of Customs based on the 'Retail Sale Price (RSP)' declared on the imported goods. However, in the absence of specific machinery provisions, akin to the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs authorities cannot re-determine the RSP for the purpose of assessment – Further, the goods in question were not 'pre-packaged commodities' within the meaning of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and therefore, the authorities could not rely on the said Rules to re-determine the RSP - In view of jurisdictional lack of competence to re-assess the duty on the goods, the recovery of differential duty and the fastening of consequence of such recovery, as well as confiscation of goods, fails. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page