ASHOK JINDAL:

The present appeal is filed by the passenger Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”), against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2026, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the Appellant by way of remand for fresh adjudication, while setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Aggrieved against the Order-in-Original passed by the Ld. Adjudicating authority, the appellant filed his appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), wherein he has raised the following grounds:

(i) denial of cross-examination of witnesses,

(ii) valuation of one seized Jacob & Co. watch by ignoring the value of the subject watch shown in the invoice sent by Ms Natela Lolaev, Chief Legal Officer of the manufacturer M/s Jacon & Co. vide her email sent on 11.11.2022 to the officers of Customs, by preferring to rely on alleged copy of uncorroborated invoice submitted by Sh. Pranav Shankar Sahoo, CEO of M/s Ethos Limited having masked discount and total amount,

(iii) imposition of redemption fine in case of re-export relying upon Union of India v. Sankar Pandi - 2018 (360) E.L.T. A214 (S.C.),

(iv) imposition of composite penalty u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act, and

(v) the quantum of penalty.

3. The Appeal contained the prayers to:-

―I. Set aside Order-in-Original No. 901HK/ADC/Yamal & Hiren/ICD-PPG/2024-25 dated 13.09.2024 so far it relates to the Appellant;

2. Allow appeal filed by the Appellant with consequential relief;

3. Pass such order(s) or direction(s) in favour of the Appellant as the Hon'ble Commissioner may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.‖

4. The Department had also filed cross-appeal for setting aside the same Order-in-Original dated 13.09.2024 with prayers to decide the following points:

(i) To examine the correctness of Order-in-Original giving the option of redemption of goods to the appellant contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, establish practice & judicial pronouncements, and

(ii) To examine the role of co-noticee Mr.Hiren Vithaldas Dhakan for not imposing any penalty on him in the instant case.

4.1. Vide the impugned common Order, the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication mainly on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice by not affording opportunity to the Appellant to cross-examine one Mr. Pranav Sahoo, and Mr. Ovais Merchant, after considering manufacturer‟s invoice supported by email confirmation from the manufacturer. Department‟s appeal was also allowed by directing fresh adjudication.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had invited our attention to the records and the written submissions filed by the Appellant in support of the appeal.

6. In response to the instant Appeal, the Department has filed its written response in two parts. The first part of their written response to the Appeal read as under-

―Subject- Proceedings before CESTAT in the matter of Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada Diary No 5133/2026 and Shri Hiren Vithaibdas Dhakan Diary No. 51134/2026— reg

Please refer to hearing dated 28.04.2026 on the subject mentioned above.

In this regard, the brief and the prayer of the department in the above said matter are as under:

Mr. Yamal Manojbhai Jagada (hereinafter referred as `Pax'), an Indian national holding Passport No. U0806985, arrived at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi from Dubai on 04.10.2022 via Flight No. EK-516. On the basis of profiling, he was intercepted by Customs officers after crossing the Green Channel. Upon being questioned, he denied carrying any dutiable or contraband goods. However, a detailed personal and baggage search led to the recovery of seven high-end luxury wrist watches, including brands such as Jacob & Co., Rolex, and Piaget,