Page 220 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

554 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

fine and penalty, upholding the allegation that as the goods at the time of import
were not bearing MRP/RSP. The appellant have violated the provisions of Legal
Metrology Act, 2009 read with the rules and further, as the goods have been im-
ported at ICD, Garhi Harsaru instead of a ‘notified sea port’ for import of drugs
and cosmetics. Thus, the goods have been rightly confiscated.
2. Assailing the impugned order, Learned Counsel points out that ICD,
Patparganj is one of the notified port for import of drugs and cosmetics as per
Rule 133 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, where it is provided that in
case of drugs/cosmetics imported by sea, among other ports at Nava Sheva etc.,
also ICD, Patparganj are notified ports for import. Learned Counsel further urges
that the ICD, Garhi Harsaru also comes under the jurisdiction of Commissioner
of Customs, Patparganj. Accordingly, they have not violated Rule 133 of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Further, urges that admittedly the appellant
has done the stickering for RSP/MRP in the customs area, before the out of
charge was given. Thus, in this view of the matter, they have not violated the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act. Accordingly, she prays for allowing of the
appeal.
3. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relied
upon the impugned order. He further urges that the stickering should have been
there on the goods, prior to the import in India.
4. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no viola-
tion by the appellant as the goods have been imported through Nava Sheva
which is the notified sea port and further ICD, Garhi Harsaru falls under the ju-
risdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj. The provision of Legal
Metrology Act read with the rules thereunder do not prohibit stickering as re-
gards MRP, prior to out of charge given to the customs. Admittedly, such sticker-
ing has been done in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the appeal is al-
lowed and the order of confiscation is set aside, and penalty under Section 112(a)
and redemption fine also set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential
benefits, in accordance with law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
SEVILLE PRODUCTS LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Interim Order Nos. IO/7-8/2020-SM(BR), dated 5-3-2020 in Appeal
Nos. C/51953 & 52105/2019
Penalty on foreign exporter - Jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962 -
Extra-terrestrial jurisdiction - Evasion of duty by misdeclaration - Imposition
of penalty on foreign exporter - Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  220