CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 50356 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. D-I/ACCI/NCH/1342/2024-25 dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi)

Criticallog India Private Limited, .…Appellant No. 18, Amman Koil Street, Madipakkam Main Road, Chennai- 600 091 Versus The Commissioner of Customs, .…Respondent New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi- 110037 APPEARANCE Ms. V. Pramila, advocate for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, authorised representative of the department CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50277/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

Criticallog India Private Limited¹ has filed this appeal against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)². This order disposes of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and the operative part of the order is reproduced below: “Order

6. In view of the above discussion and findings, I partly allow the appeal and modify the impugned to the extent of following:-

1. the appellant

2. the Commissioner Appeals (i) Reduction of the Rdemption Fine from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 2,17,980/- (10% of value of goods in Table D of OIO) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(ii) that goods mentioned at Sr. No. 6 and 7 of Table-E of the OIO are not liable to absolute confiscation and thus allowed to be released without imposition of penalty.

(iii) that goods mentioned at Sr. No. 4 of Table- E of the OIO are liable to absolute confiscation alongwith penalty of Rs. 837.50/- under Section

112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.”

3. The appellant is a technology powered logistics company providing end-to-end logistics solutions to various customers globally. The appellant imports spares for warranty replacement under delivered duty paid items. It imports the warranty parts only for specified dedicated end customers. The imported items are controlled by the US Government and authorised for export only to the country of ultimate destination for use by the ultimate consignee and end users identified by the exporters - suppliers.

4. According to the appellant, the imported goods are exclusively imported for ‘replacement’ purposes to the ultimate identified customers. Thus, the imported goods cannot be sold/resold, transferred or disposed of to any other country or to any other person other than the authorised ultimate consignee.

5. During the course of business, the appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 08.03.2024 for clearance of goods declared as ‘Memory’ and ‘Power Supply’ under the cover of invoice dated 23.01.2024 for a declared value of US$ 5140. The goods were supplied/exported by MEMPHIS-SSL-EXAGRID USA. The imported ‘Memory’ was classified by the appellant under Customs Tariff Item³ 8542 32 00 and ‘Power Supply’ under CTI 8504 40 90 of the Customs Tariff Act.

6. The officers of the department, however, raised certain queries relating to the import of excess quantity of goods than declared.

7. The appellant appointed a Chartered Engineer for survey/ inspection of the goods to show that the goods imported were as per the declaration. The report of the Chartered Engineer along with the catalogue was submitted by the appellant on 18.04.2024.

8. The Bill of Entry had been self-assessed by the appellant in the following manner:

Table-A

3. CTI

9. The Deputy Commissioner found that in terms of the report submitted by the Chartered Engineer, the appellant had mis-declared the quantity of ‘Memory’ as there were 59 items instead of 21 declared by the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the correct classification of ‘Memory’ was under CTI 8479 90 00 attracting basi