Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 272

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Dilip Gupta, President, Hemambika R. Priya, Member (Technical)
Aashna Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) – Respondent
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51069 OF 2020|CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51070 OF 2020|CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50971 OF 2020|CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50970 OF 2020|CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51019 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Mr. A.K. Seth, Mr. Chinmaya Seth, Ms. Khushboo Seth, Ms. Garima Thirani
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Shiv Shankar, Mr. M.K. Shukla

Mandatory procedures for the admissibility of statements in evidence under Customs Act must be followed; otherwise, reliance on such statements is invalid.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 14, 112, 114A and 114AA - Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Five appeals filed against the order of Principal Commissioner rejecting declared value of imported goods and imposing penalties - Key findings include mis-declaration and undervaluation admitted by the importer, reliance on the statement recorded under Section 108 - The Tribunal stresses that such statements require proper examination to be admissible in evidence according to Section 138B - Procedures in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act regarding admissibility of statements in evidence are mandatory - The appeal is allowed on the grounds that the mandatory processes were not followed in the original order. (Paras 1-25)

Table of Content
1. five appeals seek to quash customs order dated april 23, 2020. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. mis-declaration and undervaluation of goods established for the appellants. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. emphasis on procedural adherence for statement admissibility in evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. mandatory compliance with sections 9d and 138b for evidence obtained during investigations. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final conclusion overturns principal commissioner's order based on procedural faults. (Para 24 , 25)

JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

All these five appeals seek quashing of the order dated April 23, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD-TKD, New Delhi¹. This order adjudicates two show cause notices dated June 08, 2017 and April 26, 2018 that were issued to Aashna Mercantile Private Limited and the following four co-noticees:

(i) Ankur Aggarwal;

(ii) Rajiv Shewaramani;

(iii) Hemendra Rai; and

(iv) Aditya Gupta

2. Customs Appeal No. 51069 of 2020 has been filed by Aashna Mercantile Private Limited to assail that portion of the order dated April 23, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner that rejects the declared value of the goods under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ² read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962³ and redetermines the value in terms of the actual invoices retrieved from the email of the supplier of the goods. The order, therefore, confirms the demand of differential duty and imposes penalty under sections 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act.

3. Customs Appeal No. 51070 of 2020 has been filed by Ankur Agarwal, Director of Aashna Mercantile Private Limited, to assail that portion of the order dated April 23, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner that imposes penalty upon him under sections 112(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

4. Customs Appeal No. 50971 of 2020 has been filed by Rajiv Shewaramani to assail that portion of the order dated April 23, 2020

1. the Principal Commissioner

2. the 2007 Valuation Rules

3. the Customs Act passed by the Principal Commissioner that imposes penalty upon him under sections 112(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

5. Customs Appeal No. 50970 of 2020 has been filed by Hemendra Rai to assail that portion of the order dated April 23, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner that imposes penalty upon him under sections 112(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

6. Customs Appeal No. 51019 of 2020 has been filed by Aditya Gupta to assail that portion of the order dated April 23, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner that imposes penalty upon him under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

7. The dispute is in respect of the Bills of Entry that were filed relating to furniture and furniture parts that were imported. The impugned order mentions that the fact of mis-declaration and undervaluation of the goods was categorically admitted by the supplier, customs broker and the importer and even the modus operandi, the authenticity of the documents recovered and the calculation of the differential duty was admitted by the importer in the statements. According to the Principal Commissioner, the statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act were sufficient to establish that the importer, namely, Aashna Mercantile Private Limited mis-declared and undervalued the imported goods to evade payment of customs duty. The impugned order also places reliance upon the invoices retrieved from the email of the supplier.

8. The appeals were heard on two issues relating to the applicability of section 138B and section 138C of the Customs Act.

Section 138B of the Customs Act

9. The Principal Commissioner has relied upon statements made by the appellants under section 108 of the Customs Act to record a finding regarding mis-declaration and under-valuation of the goods, but these statements were retracted by the appellants in their replies.

10. Section 108 of the Customs Act deals with power to summon persons to give

Click Here to Read the rest of this document