CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2 Customs Appeal No. 86769 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CSTM-SMP-57-2016-17 dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I, New Custom House, Mumbai)

Kumar Mahendra Exim .… Appellant

1001, Dhaalgiri, Papanswadi, Nana Chowk, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400 036.

Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai …. Respondent New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Ashwini Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L.B. D’coasta, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

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

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85318/2026 Date of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 Per: M.M. PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s Kumar Mahendra Exim, Mumbai (herein after referred to, for short, as “the appellant”) assailing the Order- in-Appeal No. MUM-CSTM-SMP-57-2016-17 dated 10.06.2016 (hereinafter referred to, for short, as “the impugned order”) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I, New Custom House, Mumbai.

2.1 The facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below:

2.2 The appellant has filed a Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 9278749 dated 11.02.2013 for clearance of imported goods declared as “Knitted Fabrics” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 6006 4200 for a total quantity of 22,113.5 kgs. at Cost and Freight (CNF) value of US$ 2.80 per kg. As per the import invoice No. NC-667 dated 18.01.2013, the goods were imported from China and total declared value was US$ 61917.80. At the time of assessment of the said B/E, the Department had enhanced the unit value of the said imported goods from US$ 2.80 per kg. to US$ 4.60 per kg., on the basis of DRI Alert Circular dated 09.05.2011, which state that there was under valuation in import of fabrics from China, and to address such menace, the actual rates were ascertained by DRI for circulation to all customs authorities at various ports as guideline in future assessments. Accordingly, the appellant had paid differential duty of Rs.5,75,345/-.

2.3 On being aggrieved against such loading of value, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the grounds that they have not been issued any show-cause notice, which was mandatory in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962; that they have not been provided with any relied upon documents or contemporary import evidencing the enhancement of the assessable value and; that they have not been given any notice for personal hearing before rejection of the declared value. The appellant had also stated that the rejection of declared value was contrary to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CSTM-SMP-396/2013-14 dated 21.11.2013 had rejected the appeal, by holding that mere assessment of Bill of Entry is not a decision or order, therefore, it is not appealable. The Commissioner (Appeals) further directed that the appellant may approach the lower authority, who shall pass a speaking order as per sub-section 5 of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21.11.2013, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and vide Order No. A/1602/14/CSTB/C-I// M/1710/CSTB/C-I/14 dated 24.10.2014, the Tribunal had in disposing the case remanded the matter to the original authority, by directing the Department to pass the speaking order as directed by the lower appellate authority, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

2.4 In pursuance of the Tribunal’s order dated 24.10.2014, the original authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 27.11.2014 in rejecting the transaction value of US$ 2.80 per kg. declared by the appellant and re- assessed the value as U