CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Customs Appeal No. 89472 of 2018 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-955/17-18 dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III, Mumbai.]

Flipkart India Private Limited .… Appellants Embassy Tech Village Campus Deverabeesinahallim Bellandur Bengaluru – 560 103.

Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) …. Respondent Mumbai Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Deepak Sharma, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85398/2026 Date of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 Per: M.M. PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s Flipkart India Private Limited, Bengaluru (herein after referred to, for short, as “the appellants”) assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-955/17-18 dated 19.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to, for short, as “the impugned order”) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III, Mumbai.

2.1 The issue involved in this appeal relates to alleged undervaluation of "Power Bank 5200mAH" having part number VXN4062IN imported by the appellants from M/s Xiaomi Singapore PTE Limited, Singapore and consequent enhancement, re-determination of assessable value by original authority based on contemporaneous import data from same supplier under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [herein after referred to as “CVR”, for short]; confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellants under Sections 125(1) and 112(a) ibid, respectively; and upholding confirmation of the adjudged demands by the first appellate authority. Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below:

2.2 The appellant had filed Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 7318932 dated 30.10.2014 and B/E No. 7250469 dated 03.11.2014 with Air Cargo Customs Commissionerate, Sahar, for clearance of total 28,600 nos. of "Power Bank 5200mAH" having part number VXN4062IN, which were imported from Singapore and supplied by M/s Xiaomi Singapore PTE Limited, Singapore. In the said B/Es, the unit value of the impugned goods was declared by the appellants at US $ 3.64. The said imported goods were subjected to physical examination on first check appraisement basis, with specific examination directions given by the proper officer of Customs Appraising group. Upon examination of the imported goods, the Customs examination officers reported that they had inspected the imported goods, checked the marks and numbers, description of the goods and it was in compliance with DGFT Notification No.44 (RE-2001/1997-2002) dated 24.11.2000 for labelling of mandatory details and forwarded representative samples to the appraising group for further action. On such basis, the original authority vide order-in-original dated 15.01.2025 had enhanced the assessable value at Rs. 454.50/-, based on contemporaneous import data of similar goods indicating the price therein, varying from Rs.347.51/- to Rs.513.55/- per piece; and similar goods supplied to M/s Beetel Teletech Limited at Rs. 454.50/- per piece vide B/E No. 7776209 dated 12.12.2014 from same supplier under Rule 5 of the CVR. It was interpreted by the department that there was certain variation in International Commercial (INCO) terms between proforma invoice and final invoice in the appellant’s case and thus there was undervaluation of import consignment by mis- declaration. Therefore, in adjudication of the case, the imported goods were also confiscated for violation of sub-section (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962; and redemption fine, penalty was imposed on the appellants under Sections 125(1) and 112(a) ibid. Being aggrieved with the