CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 55616 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. I/I&G/195,196/5153 dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi)

M/s Greenwoods Exports Global Pvt. Ltd. .…Appellant B-14, Chirag Enclave NEW DELHI Versus Commissioner of Customs .…Respondent New Customs House, IGI Airport NEW DELHI AND CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 55617 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. I/I&G/195,196/5153 dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi)

Shri Rishi Sood .…Appellant S/o Shri Rajender Sood 1005, Woodbury Tower Charmwood Village FARIDABAD (HR.)

Versus Commissioner of Customs .…Respondent New Customs House, IGI Airport NEW DELHI APPEARANCE NONE for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, authorized representative of the department CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision : June 23, 2025 FINAL ORDER NOs. 50933-50934/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA :

M/s Greenwoods Exports Global Pvt. Ltd.¹ and its Director, Shri Rishi Sood have filed Customs Appeal No. 55616 of

1 the appellant

2013 and Customs Appeal No. 55617 of 2013 respectively to assail the order dated October 23, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said order upholds the order dated March 31, 2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner rejecting the declared value of the motorcycle imported by the appellant through a Bill of Entry dated November 21, 2005 and re-determines the value under rule 4 and 10(a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988² read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962³ and also confirms the differential customs duty with penalty.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals), in paragraph 5 of the order, has noted that the issue that arose for consideration was whether the motorcycle imported by the appellant was second hand and whether the same was undervalued. In this connection, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows :

“5. The issue in question is whether the subject motorcycle is second hand and old and used at the time of import and whether the same was under valued under the provisions of the Act ibid. The said Bill of Entry filed in the name of the Appellant-1 of which Appellant-2 was Director at the time of import are not under dispute. During investigations, the Appellant-2 representing himself and the Appellant-1 admitted the facts of the case regarding the under valuation as well and accepted the value provided by the Chartered Engineer under his several statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act ibid.”

3. Case has been called out, but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On May 02, 2025 the following order was passed :

2 1988 Rules

3 the Customs Act “Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the last occasion, when the matter was taken up on 16.04.2025, the appellant had by communication dated 15.04.2025 sought an adjournment. List on June 23, 2025. It is made clear that appeal may be decided on merits even if the appellant does not appear. Parties may, in the meantime, submit their synopsis/compilation.”

4. As it was made clear in the said order that the appeal may be decided on merits even if the appellant does not appear, the appeal memo has been perused and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has also been heard.

5. It clearly transpires from the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the two issues relating to under valuation and as to whether the motorcycle imported by the appellant was old or new were decided against the appellant only because of the statements made by the Director of the appellant company under section 108 of the Customs Act.

6. The issue relating to relevance of statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act was considered by this Tribunal in M/s Sur