CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86724 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 2/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 26^th May 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur.]

Gordon Woodroffe Logistics Ltd Commissariat Bldg, 5^th Floor, Dr Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai - 400001 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs GST Bhavan,,Telangkhedi Road,,Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 …Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86809 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 2/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 26^th May 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 AND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86810 OF 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 2/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 26^th May 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 APPEARANCE:

Shri Vineet Singh, Advocate for the appellants Shri Deepak Sharma, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

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

FINAL ORDER NO: 85085-85087/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 25/09/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 08/01/2026 PER: C J MATHEW At stake in this dispute are two consignments of ‘draping tubes (window curtain parts/accessories) imported by M/s Ramabors Exim LLP against bills of entry no. 7839978/15.09.2023 and no. 7929711/21.09.2023, that were held in impugned order¹ of Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur to be ‘welded stainless steel pipes of circular cross-sections and square or rectangular cross-sections’, is the controversy about the generic prevailing over the specific. A

1 [order-in-original no. 2/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 26^th May 2025]

drapery or curtain rod is nothing but a circular, square or rectangular pipe cut in length for fitment over windows/doors either of standard width or special width. And yet, the goods were not only reclassified from tariff item 8302 4900 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to tariff item 7306 4000/7306 6100 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but value of ₹37,68,903 declared by the importer was rejected under rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 to be re-determined as ₹1,15,97,516 by recourse to rule 9 therein even as the goods were ordered for confiscation under section 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 without option to redeem on payment of fine, and relieved of duty liability of ₹ 84,34,688 along with applicable interest for that reason, and penalty imposed under section 112 and section 114AA on the importer, Shri Rohan Prakash, Managing Director, and the customs broker, M/s Gordon Woodroffee Logistics Ltd. All of these are under challenge before us.

2. Without any danger of pre-judgement, we may safely say that the impugned order is an extraordinary exercise of 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 to the substantive level in the hierarchy or is tantamount to lowering to subordinate level; this has implication in conferment of appellate jurisdiction correspondingly. It could well be argued that, as the authority has been assumed by Commissioner, no substantive harm occurs with disposal in first appeal by the Tribunal instead of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)