CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Customs Appeal No. 40040 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.II.No. 865/2016 dated 16.09.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), No. 60, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001)

M/s. Junaid Interior Design ...Appellant No. 1/25, 9^th Main, Yarab Nagar, Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai II Commissionerate, No. 60, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Ms. M. Punnagai, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 40308 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 03.03.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO This appeal is filed by the Proprietorship firm viz., M/s. Junaid Interior Design, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against order-in-appeal C.Cus II No. 865/2016 dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “LAA”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that based on specific intelligence developed by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as DRI) that the Appellant was under-valuing architectural gypsum moulding products such as cornices, domes etc imported by them from M/s Hock Keng Heng Plaster Industrial SDN BHD, Malaysia, the officers of DRI conducted simultaneous searches at the premises of the office-cum godown of the Appellant and residential premises of Shri Ansar Khan, Proprietor of the Appellant firm. During the search, the officers recovered certain documents which appeared to be incriminating in nature and also recovered a Lenovo laptop under Mahazar dated

18.12.2013.

3. On preliminary scrutiny of the seized documents, the officers of DRI found that the value of the goods imported from M/s Hock Keng Heng Plaster Industrial SDN BHD, Malaysia had been mis-declared. Hence the imported goods valued at Rs. 6.79 Lakhs available at the premises of the Appellant were seized by the officers of DRI as they had reason to believe that the said goods were liable for confiscation for mis-declaration of value at the time of import.

4. Upon completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2023 was issued to the Appellant and same was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Group 3&4), Chennai-II who passed the Order-in- Original No. 47654/2016 dated 10.06.2016 wherein unit value declared by the Appellant for the impugned imported goods was rejected and the actual unit value was re- determined, the differential duty of Rs.21,74,678/- calculated on the re-determined value was confirmed along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962; the goods valued at Rs. 1,32,77,668/- which were not available for seizure and confiscation were held liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; the goods seized under Mahazar dated 18.12.2013 at the Appellant’s premises were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with the option to the Appellant to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Section 125 ibid and penalties of Rs. 21,74,678/- plus appropriate leviable interest as on date of payment of duty and Rs. 20,00,000/- were imposed on the Appellant Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively.

5. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 47654/2016 dated 10.06.2016, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before this forum.

6.1 The Ld. Advocate Ms. M. Punnagai appeared and argued for the appellant and submitted that the demand is confirmed