CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51596 OF 2019 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 01/COMMR/CUS/ADJ-I/2019-20 dated 12/04/2019 passed by The Commissioner of Customs, CGST and Central Excise, Indore – 452 001.]

M/s Shivam Marketing, ……Appellant

302, Navlkha – Nemavar Road, Indore – 452 001, Madhya Pradesh.

Versus Commissioner of Customs, ….Respondent CGST and Central Excise, Manik Bagh Palace, Indore – 452 001, Madhya Pradesh.

AND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51597 OF 2019 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 01/COMMR/CUS/ADJ-I/2019-20 dated 12/04/2019 passed by The Commissioner of Customs, CGST and Central Excise, Indore – 452 001.]

Shri Gaurav Kushwaha, Partner ……Appellant M/s Shivam Marketing, 5/26, Kali Devi Madav Gate, Farrukhabad – 209 625.

Versus Commissioner of Customs, ….Respondent CGST and Central Excise, Manik Bagh Palace, Indore – 452 001, Madhya Pradesh.

APPEARANCE:

Shri V.K. Puri, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ranjan Prakash and Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Authorized Representative for the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50274-50275/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 29.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.02.2026 P.V. SUBBA RAO M/s Shivam Marketing¹ and Shri Gaurav Kushwaha² filed these two appeals to assail the order dated 12.04.20193 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Indore deciding the proposals made in the show cause notice⁴ dated 16.12.2025 issued by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence⁵ When the matter was previously heard, learned counsel for the appellant contended that if an invoice is filed along with the Bill of Entry, valuation has to be done as per that invoice only and even if another invoice is found for the same consignment showing a different value, it cannot be considered to determine the duty because the other invoice was meant for private purposes and was not meant for assessment of duty. He had placed reliance on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in support of this contention. This Bench, doubted the correctness of the decision of the coordinate Bench and referred the matter to a Larger Bench by order dated 10.04.2023. The Larger Bench constituted by the Hon’ble President issued an order dated 25.06.2025 answering the question as follows :-

31. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the following manner:

1. Shivam 2. Gaurav

2. impugned order

4. SCN 5. DRI “Even if the importer produces one invoice with the Bill of Entry and other invoice for the same consignment is found in the private records or e-mail of the importer showing a different value, the customs duty under section 14 of the Customs Act can be determined on the basis of the transaction value reflected in the invoice retrieved from the e-

mail account of the importer.”

2. Thereafter the matter has been listed now before us.

3. We have heard Shri V.K. Puri, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ranjan Prakash and Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, learned authorized representative for the revenue and perused the records.

4. The appellant is challenging the impugned order the operative part of the which is as follows :-

“1. The value declared in the Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 is rejected in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the value of the goods is re-determined at Rs. 2,07,23,066- (Rupees Two Crore Seven Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand and Sixty-Six only) in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ;

2. The provisional assessment of the goods is finalized in respect of Container No. OOLU2897353, Bill of Entry No. 549 dated 05.03.2015 with duty at Rs. 30,48,778/- (BCD @ 10% - 20,72,307, CVD @ NIL, Primary Ed. Cess @ 2% Rs. 41,446, S&HS Ed. Cess @ 1% - 20723, SAD @ 4% - 9,14,302/-) and ordered to be appropriat