2010(04)LCX0079
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)
MKP Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai
Final Order No. A/104/2010-WZB/C-II/CSTB, dated 15-4-2010 in Appeal No. C/366/2002
Cases Quoted -
Advocated By -
None, for the Appellant.
Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -
This appeal was filed by the as-sessee against classification of the goods imported by them under CTH 9616.10 as also against the loading of value thereof under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment.
2. The assessee (appellant) imported perfumes in spray-packs of volumes ranging from 40ML to 100ML. In the relevant bill of entry, which was filed on 24-4-2001, they described these goods as "EDT SPRAY ML" MRP per piece as declared in the bill of entry was in the range of Rs. 1,600/- to Rs. 2,700/-. All the goods were classified in the bill of entry under SH 3303.00. It appears from the records that, after collecting the necessary information from the importer, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs assessed the goods to duty by classifying them under CTH 9616.10 and loading their value under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by 160% in respect of the perfumes manufactured by M/s. Puig and by 100% in respect of the perfumes manufactured by M/s. Procter & Gamble (Prestige). This assessment was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal of the assessee.
3. On going through the records, we find that the appellant has disputed both the classification and valuation. According to them, the goods are classifiable under CTH 3303.00 and not under CTH 9616.10. In the memorandum of appeal, they undertook to explain their case with brochures, invoices, pamphlets, previous bills of entries, etc. at the time of hearing. Today, the appellant is not present nor is any such brochure, invoice, pamphlet, bill of entry available on record. It appears from the available materials on record that the imported goods were in containers with a spray mechanism attached thereto. On going through the rival entries of the Customs tariff schedule, we find that perfumes and toilet waters were covered under heading 33.03 while scent sprays and similar toilet sprays were covered under heading 96.16. The latter heading also covered mounts and heads for scent sprays and similar toilet sprays. It would, therefore, appear that perfumes/scents imported in containers with spray mechanism attached thereto would squarely get covered under heading 96.16. Heading 33.03, on the other hand, appears to cover perfumes/scents imported without spray mechanism. The appellant described the goods in the bill of entry clearly indicating that they were imported in small containers of volume ranging from 40 ML to 100 ML with provision for spray. This factual position was clearly admitted by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In their appeal filed with the lower appellate authority also, they never denied that the goods were imported in the aforesaid form. In the circumstances, the view taken by the lower authorities on the classification dispute can only be sustained. Accordingly, we uphold the classification of the goods under CTH 9616.10.
4. However, with regard to the valuation of the goods, we have not found cogent reasons in the impugned order for loading the value of the goods to the extent of 160%/100%. The lower appellate authority merely stated thus: "since the valuation of the impugned goods cannot be ascertained under Rule 5 to Rule 7 of Customs Valuation Rule 1980, the ascertained value so arrived by the lower authority under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is in order. After making this averment, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) straightaway proceeded to examine the classification issue. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should have stated cogent reasons in support of the decision of the lower authority. These reasons are not forthcoming in the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the view that the valuation aspect should be addressed afresh by the lower appellate authority. In the interest of justice, an opportunity should be given to the party to explain their case with brochures, invoices, pamphlets, previous bills of entry, etc, which they have not produced before us despite their undertaking in the memo of appeal.
5. In the result, the valuation issue is remitted to the lower appellate authority with a direction to pass a speaking order thereon after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and of being personally heard. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated in Court)
Equivalent 2010 (255) ELT 0286 (Tri. - Mumbai)
Equivalent 2010 (180) ECR 0048 (Tri. - Mumbai)