Kriztle Bath and Wellness Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
In the case of Kriztle Bath and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, the CESTAT Bangalore addressed a dispute regarding the requirement to declare the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) in the Bill of Entry for imported goods. The appellant had imported goods and claimed an exemption of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. However, following a post-clearance audit, the customs authorities alleged that the appellant had not complied with the Legal Meteorology Act, 2009, which led to a notice for duty payment of ₹70,834. The adjudication authority supported this claim, ruling that the appellant was ineligible for the exemption due to non-compliance with the notification’s conditions.
During the appeal process, the appellant’s counsel argued that the allegations were unfounded as they were based solely on documentary evidence rather than a physical examination of the goods. They contended that the products were pre-packaged and that retail prices were clearly indicated on the packaging, negating the need for MRP declaration in the import documents. The counsel further emphasized that the customs authorities had accepted their declarations at the time of import, asserting that any issues should have been raised during clearance rather than during a post-clearance audit. The CESTAT found that the notification did not impose an obligation to declare MRP in the Bill of Entry, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal, thereby dismissing the demand for duty.
