IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.2 Customs Appeal No. 76328 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. KOL/CUS(Port)/AKR/09-10/2020 dated

10.01.2020 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.)

Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata (15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001)

Appellant VERSUS M/s. Aahana Commerce Pvt. Ltd.

(3, Woodburn Park, Malayalay, Unit No. 2A(S), 2^nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal)

Respondent APPEARANCE :

Mr. S. Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.75082/2026 Date of Hearing : 19^th January 2026 Date of Decision : 19^th January 2026 PER RAJEEV TANDON The facts of the case are that the Respondent imported Motor Controller and different types of Electric Tricycle Spare Parts. All the Bills of Entry filed were self-assessed. The Assessing Officer reassessed the importation by enhancing the CIF value and rejected the declared value of the impugned goods and also changed the classification of the item imported viz. „Motor Controller‟ from CTH 8503 0090 to CTH 8708

9900.

2. The Respondent, to avoid delay and demurrage charges, cleared the goods on payment of the enhanced customs duty, under protest, and requested the lower authority to issue the order(s) of assessment under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The ld. adjudicating authority however passed no formal orders under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as required in law.

4. Being aggrieved of the said assessment done by the ld. adjudicating authority, the Respondent filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the issue, vide the impugned orders, set aside the orders of assessment; the value declared by the Respondent was accepted and the goods in question were classified as „Motor Controller‟ under CTH 8503 0090.

5. Aggrieved of the said orders, the Revenue is before us.

6. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Rule 12(2)(iii) of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 which provides that “the proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed;” and has erred in interpreting Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

7. He submits that taking into account the submission of the Respondent and their failure to submit the documents, to substantiate their declared value, the transaction value cannot be determined under Rule 3(1) of the CVR, 2007 in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Rules ibid.

7.1 Moreover, it is the contention of the Revenue that if transaction value cannot be determined under Rule 3(1) of the CVR, 2007, the same has to be determined in terms of Rule 3(4) of the Rules which stipulates that transaction value has to be determined by proceeding sequentially from Rule 4 to Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules.

7.2 Further, it is contended that in the instant cases, the contemporaneous import data for identical/similar goods was available; Based on the said data, after rejecting the transaction value as price „payable‟ is higher as per evidence for the imported goods was rightly determined in terms of Rule 4/5 of the CVR, 2007, as applicable.

7.3 It is further contended by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that except the argument that their invoice value is correct and should be accepted as transaction value, the Respondent never submitted any substantive document like email exchanges for price negotiation, contracts, payment details, proof of remittance