Per: AJAY SHARMA

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai II, whereby the learned Commissioner modified the Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2018 by setting aside the value re-determination and the confirmation of differential duty but upheld the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However the Redemption Fine was sustained but reduced to ₹4,00,000/- under Section 125(1) ibid. The penalties under Section 112(a)(ii) of ₹5000/- and of ₹2,00,000/- imposed under Section 114AA respectively of the Customs Act on M/s Kumar Impex were also sustained.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows. The appellant imported ‘PU coated fabric’ (thickness 0.50 mm +/- 10%) vide Bill of Entry dated 14.10.2016 and requested for first check examination. According to the department, certain discrepancies were noticed during examination regarding the description and also in the thickness of the imported goods, pursuant to which inquiry was initiated. During the pendency of proceedings the appellant sought provisional release of the goods and the same was allowed against execution of PD Bond and furnishing of a 100% bank guarantee covering differential duty and upon compliance, the goods were released provisionally.

3. Subsequently, the declared transaction value was rejected and proceedings were initiated to re-determine the value in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Accordingly, a Show cause notice dated 25.1.2018 was issued proposing rejection of the declared assessable value/transactional value, re-determination of the same and final assessment of the Bill of Entry under the same heading in which it was assessed provisionally and confiscation of the goods along with imposition of redemption fine and penalties under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

4. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2018 confirmed the rejection of the declared value, re- determination of the value alongwith interest, penalty & redemption fine and also ordered for appropriation of the amount deposited by the appellant during the proceedings. On Appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 17.6.2019 set aside the rejection of transaction value and the re-determination of value nevertheless upheld the appropriation of ₹11,03,907/- paid as duty by the appellant and also upheld the redemption fine and penalties imposed under various provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

5. The appellant thereafter challenged the said order before this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal vide order dated 13.06.2023 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order therein and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration in view of the fact brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Bill of Entry had subsequently been finalised by the proper officer as per the value declared by the appellant. After remand, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

6. I have heard the Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative for Revenue and have also perused the case records including the synopsis/written submissions placed on record.

7. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2018 rejected the declared value and enhanced the same relying upon some another Bill of Entry no. 7776782 dated 10.12.2016 and held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) with imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 114AA respectively. The Adjudicating Authority had recorded a finding that the importer i.e. the appellant herein had resorted to mis-representation and suppression of facts with intention ‘to defraud the government of its legitimate dues’ and that the importer was the sole beneficiary of reduced cust