CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87328 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3^rd June 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.]

Al Udai Exim LLP

92 50 CC Gautam Budh Marg Lucknow – 226 018 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs GST Bhavan,,Telangkhedi Road,,Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 …Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87329 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3^rd June 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.]

Ramabors Exim LLP

92 50 CC Gautam Budh Marg Lucknow – 226 018 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs GST Bhavan,,Telangkhedi Road,,Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 …Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87330 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3^rd June 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.]

Rohan Prakash

92 50 CC Gautam Budh Marg Lucknow – 226 018 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs GST Bhavan,,Telangkhedi Road,,Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 …Respondent AND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87331 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3^rd June 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.]

Manju Agarwal

92 50 CC Gautam Budh Marg Lucknow – 226 018 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs GST Bhavan,,Telangkhedi Road,,Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri Vineet K Singh and Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocates for the appellants Shri Mahesh Yashwant Patil, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85081-85084/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 16/09/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 08/01/2026 PER: C J MATHEW On the back of import of 21 consignmemnts of ‘end cut rejected CR strips in coil form of width less than 600 mm and thickness less than

1.2 mm’ and one of the same description imported by M/s Al Udai Exim LLP between July 2023 and August 2023 and M/s Ramabors Exim LLP in July 2023 that was held to be ‘stainless steel strips in coil form of different width’ the goods were subjected to re-valuation and proceeded against for having been sought for clearance in breach of restrictions on import without BIS, [Bureau of Indian Standards] certification. Order, [order-in-original no. 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3rd June 2025] of Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur ordered re-description in the respective bills of entry though the rate of duty remained the same, viz., corresponding to tariff item 7220 2029 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 besides re-quantifying the goods imported by M/s Al Udai Exim LLP as 1184114 kg instead of 1052090 kg and of M/s Ramabors Exim LLP as 50775 kg instead of 44773 kg. The value was, and not just by revision of quantity, enhanced from ₹3,65,99,133 to ₹12,40,72,260, on bills of M/s Udai Exim LLP and from ₹ 31,34,549 to ₹42,32,929 in the bill filed by M/s Ramabors Exim LLP, under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 before confiscating the goods absolutely. Penalties under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on the importers as well as on Smt Manju Agrawal, Shri Rohan Parakash and M/s Gordon Woodroffee Logistics Ltd. Appeals preferred by the importers, the agent and the individuals is before us.

2. Without any danger of pre-judgement, we may safely say that the

impugned order is not ‘run of the mill’ adjudication; the adjudicating authority has taken over the function entrusted on ‘proper officer’ under section 17 (2), 17 (3) and 17 (4) of Customs Act, 1962 to re-assess the duty and also undertook that entrusted to ‘proper officer’ by section 47 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 forbearing from permission to clear goods, that were not presented for that purpose yet, for not being backed by BIS certification. Doubtlessly, section 5(2) of Customs Act, 1962 does enable so but it is moot if such assumption of authority is attachable t