CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51114 OF 2022 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A) CUS/D-II/Prev./NCH/335/ 2020-21 dated 17/07/2020 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.]

M/s A.R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant B-13/4, 2^nd Floor, Krishna Nagar, Ghondli Chowk, Delhi – 110 051.

Versus The Principal Commissioner ….Respondent of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi – 110 037 APPEARANCE:

Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Girijesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50050/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2026 P.V. SUBBA RAO M/s. A.R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.¹ filed this appeal to assail the order-in-appeal dated 17.07.2020² passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in which he upheld the order-in-original dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner and rejected the appellant’s appeal.

1. Appellant

2. impugned order

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records.

3. The appellant had filed Bill of Entry No. 4172048 dated 27.11.2017 for clearance of goods described as Plain PU Coated Fabric (0.62 mm thickness). On specific intelligence that the goods were mis-declared the officers of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate physically examined the goods and found that the goods were of 0.74 mm to 0.81 mm (thick). On being confronted with the anomalies, the Director of the appellant company admitted the mistake, accepted to pay the differential duty, fine and penalty. Accordingly, the order-in-original was passed rejecting the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Goods, 2007³ and re-determining the value under Valuation Rule 4 at U.S. $ 2.04 per metre based on the contemporaneous imports of identical goods. The Joint Commissioner also confiscated the goods under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962⁴ for mis-declaration and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- under section 125 of the Act.

4. He re-determined the assessable value as Rs. 33,90,110/- (as opposed to declared value of Rs. 24,83,002/)

3. Valuation Rules

4. the Act and demanded the differential duty of Rs. 2,13,497/-. He imposed a penalty of equal amount under section 114A of the Act on the appellant and the personal penalty of Rs. 21,000/- on Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, the Director of the appellant under section 112 (a) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by the impugned order, upheld the order of the Joint Commissioner.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant :

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :-

(i) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that although the appellant had waived the show cause notice and agreed to the re- assessment of goods, but it does not mean that the proper officer is free not to follow the mandate of law;

(ii) The impugned order mentions four Bills of Entry for contemporaneous import values and, accordingly, the declared value was rejected and the value was enhanced. For applying the contemporaneous data the value required to be taken is the declared value in the Bills of Entry and not the assessed values. The contemporaneous value taken were of Bill of Entry No. 3710507 dated 23.10.2017 in which the declared value was U.S. $ 1.8 per metre, which was enhanced to U.S. $ 2.24 per metre and Bill of Entry No. 3815642 dated 31.10.17 in which the declared value was Rs. 1.85 per metre, which was enhanced to U.S. $ 2.04 per metre. For applying values of contemporaneous imports only the transaction value and not the value enhanced by the officer in those Bill of Entry