CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Customs Appeal No. 60328 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/3539-3540/2018-19 dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi]

BE Office Automation Products Pvt Ltd ……Appellant

10-A, Gangyal Industial Area, Phase-3, Jammu, J&K 180010 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs , ICD New Delhi ……Respondent Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi WITH Customs Appeal No. 60330 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/3539-3540/2018-19 dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi]

BE Office Automation Products Pvt Ltd ……Appellant

10-A, Gangyal Industial Area, Phase-3, Jammu, J&K 180010 VERSUS Commissioner of Customs , ICD New Delhi ……Respondent Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi APPEARANCE:

Mr. B.L. Yadav, Consultant for the Appellant Mr. Anurag Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60250-60251/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 20.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.03.2026 S. S. GARG :

These two appeals are directed against a common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/3539-3540/2018-19 dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same and identical in nature, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 5252757 dated 17.02.2018 for clearance of goods declared as ‘Reconditioned Mainframes for copier incorporating optical system’. Another Bill of Entry No. 5795688 dated 30.03.2018 was filed for clearance of goods declared as ‘Old and Used Digital Multi- Function Devices (MFDs) with Standard Accessories & Attachment, Xerox WC 5845 & 5855’. These imported items were classified by the Appellant-Importer under Customs Tariff Heading 84433100. The department entertained the view that the Appellant has mis-declared the value of the impugned goods; therefore, the impugned goods were examined by the Chartered Engineer who found that the impugned goods were old and used part of MFD and determined the value which is higher than declared value. Further, the department has reason to doubt the truth of declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods)

Rules, 2007 (in short ‘CVR 2007’) and the said doubt was based on the expert’s opinion of empaneled chartered engineer, who physically examined the goods and provided a detailed valuation which was considered by the department and the value of the impugned goods was enhanced. The Adjudicating Authority enhanced the value and allowed the redemption only for re-export. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also imposed on the ground that the Appellant has knowingly engaged in the act of omission & commission (mis-declaration of value and description) that rendered the goods for confiscation. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeals of the Appellant by upholding the demand of duty and confiscation of the impugned goods under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; however, reduced the redemption fine and penalty. Hence, the present appeals.

3. Heard both sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Consultant for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts & the law.

4.1 He further submits that the enhancement of value is based only on the report of Chartered Engineer who has not conducted an